Dr. Anis Shorrosh, Christian Evangelist PUT TO SHAME!

Incoming search terms:

  • anis shorrosh
  • dr anis shorrosh
  • anis shorrosh biography
  • dr anis shorrosh biography
  • Shorrosh
  • sheikh ahmed m awal
  • anis a shorrosh
  • ahmed m awal
  • dr anis shorosh
  • who is anis shorrosh
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

144 Responses to “Dr. Anis Shorrosh, Christian Evangelist PUT TO SHAME!”

  1. Ibn Saad says:

    Alhamdillah, that was beautiful.

  2. Jalal says:

    Interesting how the evangelical doesn’t know the difference between classical/high arabic and modern arabic.

  3. syed saboor says:

    I was born Muslim, but I converted to Christianity for many years.
    Alhamdullilah, I converted back to Islam a few years ago. I was a follower of Anis Sharrosh and avidly watched his programs on Christian televesion, not to mention the fact I voraciously read his books. Now, I realize the deception.

  4. Ibn Anwar says:

    Masha’Allah Syed Saboor…may Allah guide us all and give us all strength and will to be steadfast on His chosen deen. Ameen.

  5. Firoj Mahmood says:

    “truth has arrived against falsehood, falsehood perishes. For falsehood is ( by its nature) bound to perish”. 17:81

    it is a shame for christianity and his career.

  6. Jonathan Daniels says:

    I was formally a Christian, but I eventually discovered the deceit used by preachers, I forsook Christianity and its blasphemous beliefs. Alhamdullilah I discovered Islam and abandoned the pagan religion called Christianity.

  7. Shihab says:

    Jonathan Daniels

    Congratulations for leaving Paul’s religion and following Jesus’ religion. May Allah give you double reward for that.

  8. Ibn Anwar says:

    Jonathan Daniels,
    Congratulations for embracing the religion or truth ordained by the Creator Himself. May Allah ‘azza wajal grant you paradise and all the Muslims as well. Ameen.

  9. Abou-Wadee3 says:

    I honestly don’t see the point, you think the Arabic Language is the Miracle of the Quran, well I am sorry to tell you that this is a lie. Arabic Language spoken before Islam in the Jahileih days was a very strong Language the 7 different Poets wrote the 7 Mo3lagat were very inspired and they wrote some beautiful poetry, Does that make them God or does it make the Quran a Miracle? I guess not. What about the rest of the world, how are they going to understand the complicated Arabic Language used in the Quran? How do they perform their prayers or it’s enough that they just said the Shahadateen and it doesn’t matter how they communicate with their God after that, that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

    • Muhammad Hussain says:

      Abou-Wadee3 said, we muslims dont claim the Arabic language itslef to be a miracle rather the signs in the Holy Quran. If you do some research on modern scientific facts with the Quran you will realise that it will be imposible for any human to know the what science has discovered recently, for example: : The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicist as a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as “The Big Bang”. It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicist for decades. According to the Big Bang the whole universe was initially one big mass then there was a “Big Bang” which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun the moon etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it happening by “chance” is nil. The Quran contains the following verse regarding the origin of the universe: “Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and earth were joined together as one unit of creation before we clove them asunder” (Quran 21:30). The striking similarity between the Quranic verse and “The Big Bang” is inescapable! How could a book which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago contain this profound scientific truth? so in that context the Quran is miracle for me.

  10. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    Could you please produce those writings and the scholars who have studied them and concurred that they are of equal or greater level than the Qur’an? I don’t think you can lol. This is nothing more than your own conjecture. The beauty, eloquence and INIMITABILITY of the Qur’an’s style and language is described in the words of Marmaduke Pickthall as :

    “The glorious Qur’an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy.”

    extracted from The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an,Taj Company, Karachi, n.d., pg. 3

    By the way inimitable means something which cannot be imitated or reproduced in order to challenge it.

    You’re going to say,”oh yeah, but wasn’t Pickthall a Muslim? His view is of course that because he’s bias you see.” All right, I could argue that but I won’t. What I will do is produce an outside source which cannot be deemed bias, hence reliable. First, let us see what D.S. Margolith claims(he’s an orientalist who supposedly studied the Qur’an):

    “It would be difficult to find another case in which there is such a complete identity between the literary work and the mind of the who who produced it.”

    A.J. Arberry, The Holy Koran: An Introduction with selection, George Allen and Unwin Itd, London, 1953, pg. 15

    What this scholar tries to do is to attempt to deny the linguistic and stylistic difference between the daily speech of the Prophet as recorded in Hadith literature with that of the Qur’an. Basically, he’s saying that both are one and the same, hence both come from the same source i.e. Muhammad the originator and author of the Qur’an. This is his claim. Professor A.J. Arberry, a reknown non-Muslim expert on the Qur’an and accepted by all Western orientalist scholars differs:

    “I do not doubt at all that the Koran was a supernatural production, in that it bears all marks of being the discourse of exaltation. We know quite well how Muhammad spoke in his normal everyday moods; for his obiter dicta have been preserved in great abundance.”

    “It would be more reasonable to say that it would be difficult to find another case in which the literary expression of a man differed so fundamentally from his ordinary speech.”

    A.J. Arberry, The Holy Koran: An Introduction with selection, George Allen and Unwin Itd, London, 1953, pg. 31-32

    So here we have a non-bias scholar admitting to the profoundness of the Qur’anic language which is supernatural in character as he himself put it.

    To your question how do the rest of the world understand the complicated Arabic language used in the Qur’an…well, quite simple really. It’s quite similar as to how you understand the Bible. I don’t think you understand the intricacies of Hebrew and Greek, do you? No, you don’t. The laymen are not expected to know and be experts in the intricacies of the language of scripture. That’s why there are scholars. In regards to prayers..well the fixed prayers such as the 5 daily ones are to be conducted in Arabic and I have yet to encounter a problem in this. I come from an international university and I do not see the Indian, Chinese, Malays, English, American, Australian and even the Japanese stumbling on the prayers because it’s to be conducted in Arabic. Of course, at the beginning there will be some difficulties as is with any other given language, but once one gets used to it no problems will arise. In fact, most Muslims suffer no impedement whatsoever with performing the prayers in Arabic. Perhaps, you haven’t travelled much. I have and I am constantly exposed to different cultures and races so I can say for sure that there ain’t no problems mate :p. In regards to communication..well, there is no prohibition on those who cannot speak Arabic as a language to talk to God outside of the fixed prayers in whatever language suits them. I myself sometimes supplicate in my own mother tongue. No problem there either. In any case, like your other comment you have completely missed the point of the post. The video simply shows Dr. anis Shorrosh who’s suppose to be Arab and claims to know Arabic clearly does not really know it. He can’t even read correctly, yet he’d have us all believe he’s an expert in the Arabic. It was not an issue of whether the Qur’anic language is superior or not. The questioner wanted to find out the level of understanding of Dr. Anis Shorrosh in regards to the Qur’an.

  11. Trav says:

    The Quran can’t be verified objectively.

    The test is too subjective- how are Anglo’s supposed to believe that the book is the word of God? Because in the original Arabic it’s very beautiful?

    Seriously, how?

    It’s very difficult to verify whether or not anyone revealed anything to Mohammed. Compare this to Christianity- we can look at the historical evidence and objectively determine that in all probability, Jesus did rise from the dead because that’s the best explanation for the historical information and facts we do have about the events which took place.

    • Usamah says:

      Why Qur’an can not be verified subjectively? You have to elaborate on the premise that led you to the fallacious conclusion.
      Forget the “risen” Jesus. Christians cant even historically prove that Jesus “of Nazareth” ever existed! No wonder why the author of Matthew’s Gospel construed a prophecy which isnt found anywhere in hebrew scripture, and consequently the epithet–of Nazareth–is blown away right from its inception. Speaking of Qur’an in similar vein, it doesnt give an unhistorical epither to Jesus. Qur’an calls him–Al Masih and Ibn Maryam, the latter being the most significant title for Jesus as much as it reminds people of the fact that he was “created” without the agency of a father.

  12. Trav says:

    And also- Shihab, you say that Christianity is “Paul’s religion’ and Islam is “Jesus religion”.

    Would you (or anyone else) like to expand on this claim a little? It does seem a little contradictory, given that Paul converted to Christianity after an experience with the risen Jesus. If Islam is Jesus religion, then how do you account for Paul’s conversion to Christianity?

  13. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    Trav, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Dr. Lang the mathematician, Yusuf Islam and so many others apparently do recognise the beauty of the Qur’an. They’re all “anglos” and converted into Islam from Christianity. Heck, I’m not Arab either and I do sense and realise the beauty of the Qur’an.

    The Qur’an is too majestic a book filled with wisdom, answers to everyday life and information about science that have only recently been discovered to be attributed solely to Muhammad who was an illiterate and unschooled. As for Jesus’ alleged ressurection. I suggest you watch Shabir Ally’s debate with the Christian New Testament historian Michael Licona here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wjPLQLNXY . The latter got seriously owned. It is sufficient to mention here that the records you have are doubtful at best and totally weak at worse. This can be seen from the fact that there is no way to verify the true identity of the authors of the four Gospels since the documents that exist today are merely copies of copies of copies of copies and the “originals” are lost. The problem is compounded further by the fact that there are over 36 000 variants discovered by John Mill several hundred years ago in the 100 or so Greek manuscripts which he studied in detail and that number have now risen to 400 000 to 600 000 as pointed out by Prof. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and it is as he himself puts it “comparatively there are more variants in the New Testament than there are words”. The fact that scholars and scribes have added to the so called Gospels at whim e.g. longer ending of Mark Chp 16, baptismal formula in Matthew 28, the popular story of the prositute being forgiven by Jesus etc. is enough to label the whole thing as DOUBTFUL and weak. If they are doubtful and weak how can you be so sure of anything, let alone the supposed ressurection which even in the Gospels nobody witnessed? Let us say for the sake of argument that Jesus did actually die and was raised back to life? How in the world does that make him anymore god than Lazarus or those saintly people in Matthew who were all raised supposedly?

    You said,
    “And also- Shihab, you say that Christianity is “Paul’s religion’ and Islam is “Jesus religion”.”

    Yes, this is true, many scholars have labelled Paul as the founder of Christianity next to Jesus or some have even raised him above Jesus. Michael H. Heart in his work of 100 famous people throughout history graded Jesus as number lower than Muhammad because according to him the finding of Christianity is to be shared with Paul. Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament and the book of Acts is mostly about him. As such he is named the “second founder” of Christianity by some scholars as pointed out by Prof. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman in his Lost Scriptures on page 160. Von Loewich who’s a strong defender of Paul endorses the statement of W. Wrede which reads:
    “Paul separated Christianity from Judaism and gave it a distinct form, Hence, he is the creator of those churches which were built in the name of Jesus.” (What is Christianity)

    The Encyclopedia Brittanica describes Paul as:
    “In reality, he is the founder of that ‘Church Christianity’ which is totally different from the Christianity brought by Jesus.”

    The Pauline mission hijacked the early Church to which the disciples belonged to and gave the so called teachings of Jesus a new look emphasising things which Jesus did not. The truth of this is observed by Cardinal Danie’lou in an article called “A new representation of the Origins of Christianity:Judeo-Christianity” in December 1967.

    Thus, Shihab was indeed right on the mark ;) .

    For more information on the preservation and everything that needs to be known about the Qur’an proceed to http://www.islamic-awareness.org

    Thanks

  14. Trav says:

    Ok thanks Ibn, I’m aware of Shabir Ally, and Bart Ehrman and pretty much everything you mentioned above. I haven’t watched the Ally-Licona debate but I have seen other debates on the resurrection and read all about it, obviously it interests me so I’ll watch that debate if I get a chance.

    Regarding Ehrman, he is a world class textual critic but what you need to realise is that 90% of his stuff is good textual criticism, but the other 10% is wild speculation at best. Of course there are more variants than words! We have over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament. If there are 200 variants in 5000 manuscripts, that’s 1 million variants! And remember, in 99% of cases, variants have absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the text. So if there’s 200 variants in each manuscript, only a handful, if that, will have any impact on the meaning of the text. The fact is that the vast majority of textual critics agree that we can know with a reasonable degree of certainty that what we have now is very close to the originals. So the majority of Ehrman’s contemporaries disagree with the conclusions he draws from the data- including his mentor Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual critic that ever lived.

    Regarding Paul, yes I’m aware that he was number 6 in Hart’s top 100 book and Jesus is number 3. I was actually reading that book the other day when I stumbled across it in the library. I’m not denying that Paul had a huge influence in spreading early Christianity and in Christian theology. However, you didn’t answer my question- If Jesus religion is Islam, then how do you account for Paul’s conversion to Christianity?

    And finally, the Koran…well, please. I’m not sure why anyone would convert to a religion simply because they “recognise it’s beauty” and because it’s “filled with wisdom”. The sayings of Buddha and Gandhi are filled with wisdom too, amazing wisdom…does that mean we bow down and worship them? No.

  15. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    That’s very good that you are aware of Shabir Ally and Dr. Bart D Ehrman. So, we’re on the same page ; ).Yes, I’m sure the ressurection is a very big topic that interest you and most other Christians in light of Paul’s own admission that:
    “and if the Messiah has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing.”(1 Corinthians 15:14)
    Lately, Christian evangelists like William Lane Craig and Licona have made it their mission to logically and historically prove the ressurection of Jesus Christ based on logical and historical standards. As pointed out by Shabir Ally that is where you have successfully built a stack of problems for yourself. Alhamdulillah, Shabir did an excellent job in the debate with Michael Licona. I do hope that you watch it and share with me your thoughts about it.

    I thank you for admitting to the qualification of Dr. Bart D. Ehrman as Bruce Metzger’s own protige’ and a most qualified scholar in his own right at that. However, you claimed that “80% of his stuff is good textual criticism, but the other 10% is wild speculation at best.” How did you come to that conclusion exactly? He has written sereval works including the one he co-authored with his teacher Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Which one are you referring to or are you referring to all of them? Did you count the points made and then calculated it percentage wise in light of other findings? Care to share with me the mthod in which you applied to come to that percentage? Perhaps, you’d care to list those that fall under “wild speculation” as well? You do realise that the expression “wild speculation” carries similar meaning with “wild schemes” right? That is to say, speculating outside the realm of reason or prudence i.e. unrestrained. Are you trying to suggest to me that this scholar which you yourself described as a “a world class textual critic” and the eminent student and protige of Prof. Dr. Bruce Metzger whom you appraised as “the greatest textual critic that ever lived” gave in to unrestrained by reason or prudence in speculation? That does not sound like a world class scholar to me. Prof. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman mentions in his popular Misquoting Jesus on page 89, “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates-some say there are 200 000 variants known, some say 300 000, some say 400 000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variants among our manuscripts than there are word in the New Testament.”
    Did Bruce Metzger mention anything contrary to this? If so, please direct me to the source material in which the disagreement in mentioned.
    Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland have done a lucid job at analysing critical editions of the NT such as that of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover. They counted the total number of verses together with the variant free verses and came up with the sum total of 62.9% of variant free verses from 7947 of the total number of verses of which 4999 are free of variant. That means 47.1% or 2948 verses are variants! Of the canonical Gospels only 54.5% of the verses are variant free which means the majority are variants! Evangelists, Bible-thumpers and hot-gospellers like Doug Smith would go aound telling people that the Gospels are 98.33 percent pure. Joseph Smith in a debate with Shabir Ally claimed a 99.9% and that there are only 40 verses that are in doubt! Is there no end to their WILD SPECULATION?
    First of all, perhaps you’d care to share with us that the MOST ancient piece of solid evidence you have of the Gospels, nay of the ENTIRE New Testament only dates back to 125 to 150 CE labelled p52. And that manuscript is ONLY a FRAGMENT!Do you know what’s on that FRAGMENT? There are only some complete and partial words that I will transcscribe here for you(because I don’t have a Greek keyboard and font on my computer right now, I will replace the letters that can’t be produced by a normal keyboard with # and name them in their proper Greek):
    “John 18:31-33″
    “…O(omicron)I IOY(the triangle,delta)AI …HMI …OY(delta)ENA O (lambda) (PI)EN (sigma)HMAIN(omega)…(theta)NH(sigma)KEIN E …PION O …(PI) …KAI EI(PI) …I(omega)…
    “John 18:37-38″
    TOYTO (gamma)E(gamma)ENNHMAI …(sigma)MON INA MAPT …K THE(sigma) A(lambda)H(theta)E …E(gamma)EI AYT(omega) …I TOYT …TOY(sigma) I …T(omega)”

    That’s about it! Imagine how the heck scholars resconstructed that? The vast majority of the words and letters are missing and they reconstructed it based on LATER manuscripts. How can you be so sure that those later manuscripts are right? If you can’t even establish EXACTLY what the author said how can you be so sure about the meaning of the text? One word can change the meaning of an entire text. This can be seen in the famous text of 1 Timothy 3:16 wherein a later scribe has purposefully add the line inside the ) thus changing an omicron into a theta which totally changed its meaning from he or who to God! Even today, many Bibles still carry theos instead of O(sigma) which reads Hos! If this is not perversion and corruption? What is? Even today Christians are fighting as to what exactly the verse should say. Of course, those who are out to prove Jesus’ divinity will most likely side with manuscripts that read theos instead of just hos. What certainty are you talking about? Scholars are not even certainy that Matthew actually wrote Matthew, Mark actually wrote Mark etc. J.B. Philips who translated the Gospels into Modern English who’s an Anglican scholar says in his work:
    “He(Matthew) used Mark’s Gospel freely”
    In other words, Matthew was copying and plagiarising from Mark! Christian scholars claim that Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus and that Mark(who’s traditionally said to be Mark the Evangelist)was only a boy at the time. Why would an alleged eyewitness copy from a boy(supposedly became Peter’s companion later) who was not even there?
    Most of the other manuscripts that the Christians have in their possession date from the second century(usually mid or later) to the 7th century. One even goes as far as to the 8th century i.e. p41. But of course you guys have Codex Sinaiticus which is suppose to be complete and has all of the important things intact. However, if you want to use the Aleph you need to convince those people who cling to the TR so vehemently and others that 1 Timothy 3:16 needs to be changed and perhaps you’d like to include those missing texts that have been expelled from the so called canon as suggested by Athanasius namely, the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepard of Hermas etc.

    You said:
    Regarding Paul, yes I’m aware that he was number 6 in Hart’s top 100 book and Jesus is number 3. I was actually reading that book the other day when I stumbled across it in the library. I’m not denying that Paul had a huge influence in spreading early Christianity and in Christian theology. However, you didn’t answer my question- If Jesus religion is Islam, then how do you account for Paul’s conversion to Christianity?

    You do not deny that Paul had a huge influence in spreading early Christianity? Well you did say:
    “Would you (or anyone else) like to expand on this claim a little? It does seem a little contradictory, given that Paul converted to Christianity after an experience with the risen Jesus. If Islam is Jesus religion, then how do you account for Paul’s conversion to Christianity?”

    That does sound like you had somewhat of a compunction to accept the claim that Paul is responsible for Christianity. But, as I have shown you it remains tha fact that Paul had a great impact on “Christianity” and his version of it became the dominant one which in trun extinguished other forms besides either by force or otherwise through the years of early Christianity especially when it won Constantine over to its cause. This was realised even more so under Theodosius 1 in 380 and even more severe laws were implemented under the Christian Emperor Justinian between 527 to 528 and it went on even until 1482 wherein over 2000 so called heretics were burned alive in Andalusia who’s idea was even supported by martin Luther who initially had some reservations but later changed in mind in 1531. Anyway, we’re going a wee bit off topic. Now, you mention that Paul converted to Christianity. Well, first of all..what is Christianity? Did Jesus preach “CHRISTIANITY”? Last I checked the word did not even exist during Jesus’ ministry nor anywhere around post-ressurection appearances. In fact, the word itself is mentioned only three times in the whole New Testament and Paul did not even mention it once. The word appears in Acts 11:26 and 26:28 and one more time in 1 Peter 4:16. In fact, the first individual recorded to have used the word was Agrippa the pagan king! Don’t you think it’s ironic that this name which have now been become the christened name for supposed followers of Jesus in “monotheism” was given to your leader Paul by a pagan? I find it strange to believe that this persecutor of early followers of Jesus who hated them and had them killed was passified by some meeting he had in a few narrations that contradict each other and filled with discrepencies. This then brings us to the question which I forgot to address in my initial response to you namely, the meeting of Paul with the so called risen Jesus. You mentioned that:
    “It does seem a little contradictory, given that Paul converted to Christianity after an experience with the risen Jesus.”

    In reality, Paul did not meet the risen Jesus did he? The narratives about Jesus’ alleged meeting with Jesus are found in three places namely, Acts 9:1-7, Acts 26:12-18 and Acts 22:5-9. Basically, we are informed that he saw a light. It was not an immaterial, intangible meeting. That is how Jesus supposedly met Paul. On the other hand, Jesus’ meeting with his disciples after the alleged crucifixion namely, after he has supposedly “risen” or I would say returned was physical and tangible. As we read in Luke 24:40:
    “Have a look at my hands and my feet, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
    Prior to that his meeting with Mary was also physical and in human form. No light or anything like that which Paul experienced was experienced by anyone! So, Paul did not meet with the alleged “risen” Jesus. Whoever he met was different from the solid man which the others met. With regards to how do we account for his supposed conversion. I’d suggest you read an interesting book called “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” and also the letters of James where he mentions of a secret group which was out to hijack the true teachings of Jesus. My guess would be that Paul belonged to such a group who was sent out to passify the early followers of Jesus(the second front) besides rooting them out by force. And my guess would indeed be on par with the fact that the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are distinct from that of Paul. Thus, as Prof. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman points out in his “Lost Scriptures”, “Some scholars have gone so far as to label him the “second founder” of Christianity, by which they mean that his theological emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus for salvation from sin marked a distinct modification of Jesus’ simple message of the need of repentance and forgiveness.”

    Finally, I thank you for your continued participation.

  16. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings again,
    I almost forgot to address your last paragraph:
    “And finally, the Koran…well, please. I’m not sure why anyone would convert to a religion simply because they “recognise it’s beauty” and because it’s “filled with wisdom”. The sayings of Buddha and Gandhi are filled with wisdom too, amazing wisdom…does that mean we bow down and worship them? No.”

    First of all you have just made a false analogy. While the Qur’an makes it explicitly clear that God is Allah and that He demands worship from all neither Buddha nor Gandhi ever made such claims to divinity let alone demands of worship. So, no matter how beautiful their teachings one may percieve, to worship them would be credulous and wrong. They both died as natural human beings. However, according to the Buddhist tradition Ghautma Buddha actually died over 30 or so times and transformed into numerous different creatures after each reincarnation including an elephant before reaching a spiritual state which they call as “Nirvana” i.e. a state of nothingness. This philosophy is easily traced back to Vedantism or commonly known as Hinduism whereby the idea of nothingness in spiritual elevation and station is found in Sanata Dharma.

    The uniqueness of Islam is staggering. It is not just an offshoot of some religion of which many are. The name Islam itself bears testimony to this fact. No other religion is named in such a way free from its founder or initial propagater(Christianity, Buddhism etc.) or location(hinduism) or any other object or material. Indeed, Islam was named by Allah the Creator Himself. The truth about its teaching of monotheism and how Allah had sent messengers to past communities and societies can still be traced back in ancient religions that have both survived and gone extinct. A good example would be Hinduism. Though it has been corrupted beyond recognition by the hands of men(the traditions can be changed at the whim of their Gurus and priests) one can still trace back the fundamental of faith as taught by Islam which it claims was taught to all peoples by all its messengers namely, monotheism. For example, in Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1 we read, “Ekam evaditiyam” which means “He is One only without a second” Such ideas are repeated throughout their scriptures e.g. Yajurved by Devi Chand M.A. pg. 377, Yajurved 32:2, Yajurved 40:8, Yajurved 40:9, Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20 and many more. Unfortunately, Hindus today have derailed all these and created for them countless gods and goddesses whenever and wherever they wish. Islam is a religion which purifies all false models of God and reintroduces to men the true concept that will save them if they have heard the message. Those who have not been given the opportunity to hear will be judged according to Allah’s discretion and Grace. And He knows best.

    However, coming back to the Qur’an. I did not just mention that it is absolutely and transcedingly and exceedingly beautiful in words of which there is no doubt as A.J. Arberry(a non-Muslim scholar) himself admits as cited in an earlier comment. Rather, I have also mentioned that it is filled with the most pertinent of teachings for all of mankind for all times and contains the most exhuberant of ethics and information(particular in the field of natural science) that have only been recently discovered by men. There is absolutely no doubt about the eloquence of the Qur’an in linguistics, grammar, rhetoric, and rhythm as anyone who have honestly studied the text will agree. To listen to the beauty of it please proceed to:

    If you listened with an open mind your heart will be touched, insha’Allah.

    You might mention that what’s the point of listening to a language which you don’t even understand? Number one, even though you may not understand at first, it can still have a great affect on you spiritually as well as physically. Number two, the reason why Muslims emphasise the Arabic text and have preserved it as such it because we want as many people as possible to have access to it. In fact, it is the only ancient language that have continued to be alive and spoken throughout the world for the past 1400 years. As a result, the original text is not the exclusive property of an elite group of people called scholars in their ivory towers. In addition, it is also a fulfillment of prophecy from your own book as I have discussed here:
    http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-by-islam/

    For further information about the truth of the Qur’an as God’s final revelation proceed to:
    http://www.thewaytotruth.org/catindex11.html

    Thank you, and may Allah guide all of us. Ameen.

  17. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    I have just finished re-reading my recent comments and have discovered that I made several spelling and grammatical errors. I do apologise and hope that you did not find too much trouble understanding my points. I should have proof read the responses before submitting them. Once again, I apologise for any inconvenience incurred. Thanks.

    Sincerely,
    Ibn Anwar

  18. Jenny says:

    I was raised in a idol worshiping Hindu family. Later, I realized that this was the wrong path. I found Jesus and now I am free and have peace in my heart. Hallelujah!! Jesus sacrificed Himself so we might live. No other love can compare to Jesus love for us.

    • Soheyb says:

      Greetings!
      And what kind of love is that for the creator of the universe to sacrifice “His own son???” for the sins of humanity???Why can’t God forgive sins without that sacrifice?? And why can God Almighty forgive sins after that?? Amazing kind of logic!!! Think, reflect and analyse. You have a brain, don’t you?

  19. Ibn Anwar says:

    Jenny,
    Millions of people were living prior to Jesus’ alleged sacrifice…what are you talking about? : p

  20. ahmed says:

    i was a christian like u men , but recently i enterd islam because i saw the truth . in the church they previous prophets were praying to one God , then why we in this event pray to gesus !!! believe me islam is the truth .

    my love

  21. MoMa says:

    i have the corect version for dr. anis shorosh, Do not play in the minds of men in vain. You will be lost millions of … to ablauce you!!!

  22. Abdullah says:

    LOL Fail!

    I also used to be Christian but I have been Muslim for nearly ten years, All Praise and Thanks belong to Allah alone.

  23. Ghassan Mahfouz says:

    Quran Contradictions:
    sura 11 45 Noah’s son was drowned in the flood
    sura 21 75 we saved him Noah and all his kingfolk from the great colamity.

    How did Noah’s son die if Noah and all his people were saved?

    another point:
    If Mohammed is a prophet then why he only spoke with angel Gabriel and not God? this shows Mohammed is a messenger only, not prophet. Muslims say “There’s no God but God himself, and Mohammed is his messenger”

    another point:
    How can the bible be wrong and the Jew’s bible be wrong if both of them were written 1000 and 600 years before the Quran. Thus we conclude that when Quran contradicts with the Christian and Jews bible then Quran is wrong.

    another point:
    How many wives did Mohammed have? did any man of God before him have wives as much as him? doesn’t this tell us something? All religions call for family bonds and family values. Family means a man and a wife whom are in love. How can you love this number of girls? this shows you do not represent family values and bonds.

    another point:
    Islam encourages women to learn and study, so why don’t they allow her to become a judge? isn’t that a form of study? or are women not qualified to think well?

    another point:

    How can a man of God kill a soul? How did Islam spread in the times of Mohammed? through war and conquers. How did Christianity spread after Jesus crucification? through peaceful means. I know that Europeans had many wars claiming to be in name of Christianity, but this is not allowed in Christianity. They will all be judged upon that by God. Christianity was already spread at that time, but it first spread through peaceful means. How did Islam spread?

    I ask all these questions so that they can be answered, I do not ask so as to disrespect anyone.

  24. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings Ghassan Mahfouz,
    I would like to thank you for taking the time to share with us your thoughts and concerns regarding Islam. I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

    Your first concern is regarding Noah and his son. You claim that there is a contradiction between two passages where one says his son died whilst in another it says “all” his family was saved. First of all, you got the reference wrong. The verse is 76 and not 75 in Surah al-anbiya’ which is chapter 21. Secondly, the translation you gave is wrong and misleading. Nowhere in the verse does it say “all his family”. It simply says wa “ahlahu”. Ahl literally means member(part of something like a group), however it also means family and the meaning conveyed here is that of kinship i.e. family. So, you have already made two errors in your assertion. Granted that the verse says his family was saved and in another place it says his son drowned is there really a contradiction? No, there is no contradiction because as we have just seen the verse in chapter 21 does not say that every single one of his family members were saved. In addition, there is a basic principle in Qur’anic exegesis that stipulates that “different parts of the Qur’an explain each other”. So if we look at the Qur’an in the Qur’anic context then the answer is quite clearly given specifically in verse 46, chapter 11 which you failed to produce. It answers your question perfectly. The Qur’an says, “He said, “O Noah! He is not your family: for his conduct is unrighteous…”(11:46) So, in the verse Allah is unilaterally(as is His prerogative) denouncing the rebellious son as being Noah’s family. Thus in verse 76 of chapter 21, the “ahl” or family does not include his son.

    Your second concern is regarding Muhammad s.a.w. You said,
    “If Mohammed is a prophet then why he only spoke with angel Gabriel and not God? this shows Mohammed is a messenger only, not prophet. Muslims say “There’s no God but God himself, and Mohammed is his messenger””

    A messenger is a prophet. What is the word prophet in Arabic? It is Nabi which is derived from the Hebrew Navi which in turn is derived from Akkadian. Do you know what it means? Contrary to the Christian idea about making prophecies the word means “the one who is speaking for…”. So, prophets are those who speak for God. Yes, most times the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. did communicate with the Angel Gabriel. But, the Angel Gabriel was sent by God Himself to instruct Muhammad s.a.w. who was His chosen messenger and prophet. So, your point is totally moot. Nevertheless, the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. did indeed speak to Allah SWT. Have you ever heard of the “night journey”? The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was taken to the heavens upon a mystical being called the “buraq” and he met Allah SWT at which time the 5 daily prayers were first given. So, your assertion that Muhammad s.a.w. never spoke to Allah is wrong.

    Your third concern is as follows,
    “How can the bible be wrong and the Jew’s bible be wrong if both of them were written 1000 and 600 years before the Quran. Thus we conclude that when Quran contradicts with the Christian and Jews bible then Quran is wrong.”

    The internal and external evidences regarding the Bible leaves us with no other sound judgment but to declare it corrupted. This is the position of many if not most Bible scholars today. I suggest you proceed to the following links to my articles on this issue for clarification,
    http://unveiling-christianity......judgement/

    http://unveiling-christianity......r-gospels/

    http://unveiling-christianity......ifficulty/

    http://unveiling-christianity......lly-sound/

    What the Qur’an came to do was put the record straight for the many things that the Bible, Judaism and Christiaity got wrong. It purifies that which was corrupted.

    Your fourth concern is as follows,
    “how many wives did Mohammed have? did any man of God before him have wives as much as him? doesn’t this tell us something? All religions call for family bonds and family values. Family means a man and a wife whom are in love. How can you love this number of girls? this shows you do not represent family values and bonds.”

    Muhammad s.a.w. had 13 wives. I don’t see that as a problem. He was a model for humanity when it comes to family life among so many other things also. You asked if there were men of God who married wives as many as he did. Well, if you’re a Christian or a Jew then have a look at your own Old Testament. Abraham had three wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah(though some views suggest that Keturah and Sarah are the same). Solomon(was he not a man of God?) had 700 wives and 300 concubines! lol…In fact, there are laws in the Old Testament allocated by God specifically to cater for the concept of more than one wife(polygamy). But, if you’re a Christian then I ask that you look at the life of Jesus. Did he have any wives? No, he did not. So, why don’t Christians follow him? Stop marrying! Well, you can’t afford that obviously because Christianity will cease to exist lol. You asked, “How can you love this number of girls?” Well, usually in a family there will be more than one child. In fact, there are families with 10 to 15 children. Some of my friends have that many siblings. How do the parents cope? Are you suggesting that the parents do not love all except one of their children? lol..your question is a very silly one.

    Your fifth concern is as follows,
    “Islam encourages women to learn and study, so why don’t they allow her to become a judge? isn’t that a form of study? or are women not qualified to think well?”

    Yes, Islam does encourage women to study and better themselves in education. They can become teachers and scholars as were the wives of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. such as Aishah r.a. who was the source of knowledge for the companions. In fact, she even led an army. But, when it comes to sitting at the seat of judgment women are barred. Why? Because judgment requires a lot of effort and impartiality. Women are known for their kindness and sometimes they tend to be too kind and less objective(that’s their nature). Judges are supposed to be able to pass judgment without bias and do it swiftly even when it comes to harsh punishments. Naturally, it is not suitable for women to condemn others to death or order their members be chopped off say for example for theft. It would be unjust to lay such responsibility or rather burden upon women. Further more, women have children to care for. Judges’ workload is immense. Who would look after the children? Islam does no believe in putting the care of children totally to nannies or servants. They have to be cared for by their mothers. There are many more reasons, but I think the ones mentioned are sufficient. By the way, you claimed that becoming a judge is also learning..how is it learning exactly?

    Your fifth assertion is as follows,
    “How can a man of God kill a soul? How did Islam spread in the times of Mohammed? through war and conquers. How did Christianity spread after Jesus crucification? through peaceful means. I know that Europeans had many wars claiming to be in name of Christianity, but this is not allowed in Christianity. They will all be judged upon that by God. Christianity was already spread at that time, but it first spread through peaceful means. How did Islam spread?”

    How can a man of God kill a soul? Why don’t you ask God about His man of God named Moses? How many people were killed by Moses? Men, women and children(and even donkeys)! Obviously, you have not read your Bible. How did Islam spread in the time of Muhammad s.a.w.? Well, read his biography and you will know. To compell someone to convert to Islam is explicitly forbidden by the Qur’an in chapter 2 where it says “La iqraha fiddin” meaning there is no compulsion in religion. There was no compulsion in the time of Muhammad s.a.w. Look at the history of the hijrah before the treaty of Hudaybiyy whereby the Muslims signed a peace treaty with the idolaters of Mecca. Thousands of people flocked to Medina from all corners of Arabia to pledge their support and belief in Islam. None of them were forced. Muhammad s.a.w. sent deputations to the mighty kingdoms around him with the invitation to Islam among whom was the Negus or Najashi of Abyssinia who was an avid and strong Christian that the Muslims took shelter from prior to the hijrah to Medina. When he received the letter from Muhammad s.a.w. he beame a Muslim and two years after that he died a Muslim. When the Prophet s.a.w. got news of is passing, he himself led the funeral prayer for the dead Negus in absentia. When Muhamma led a 10 000 strong Muslim army to conquer Mecca and conquered it they did, all of those(with the exception of no more than 10) including Hind the woman who employed an assasin to assinate Hamza the uncle of the Prophet s.a.w. and thereafter ate a piece of his heart were all forgiven and allowed freedom. Where was the compulsion? Read the history of Islam and stop making silly comments lest you be deemed silly. You ask about the history of Christianity and how it spread. Christianity became a state religion in the 300s after the Council of Nicea under the helm of Constantine. Read the history of Christianity and you will know that all those who opposed the “established doctrines” such as the trinity were systematically dehumanised and killed. Prior to the Council of Nicea there was no one Christianity. There were many Christianities and I recommend that you read Prof. bart Ehrman’s ‘Lost Christianities’. Pagan churches were razed and destroyed including those of Mithra. It got worse under Emperor Justine who persecuted just about anyone who disagreed with the doctrines of the “estblished church”. That is how Christianity spread.

    I hope this helps,
    Ibn Anwar

  25. KZ says:

    A very good reply, Ibn Anwar.

    This is a reminder to people like Ghassan Mahfouz that when they post comments, they should check their facts first. When people don’t check their facts, the comments they post can easily become disrespectful to others.

    Also, as Ibn Anwar said,
    “stop making silly comments lest you be deemed silly.”

  26. oxelite says:

    Rofl @ “Dr” Anis Shorrosh – wasn’t he recently put behind bars for arson? He tried burning down his own apartment building, with no concern for those in it.

    At any rate – this is great demonstration for how ignorant the enemies of Allah and the enemies of Islam are. Fantastic post.

  27. Zayed Ahmed says:

    To ghasan mahfouz

    Dear ghasan

    Let me ask u a question…do u have brain?..oh i am sorry!I think i shouldn’t ask such questions coz man think it is racisT!
    Go and study christianity>>>….look at the history of crusades to check how your filthy christians raped muslim women in the name of the cross , children were killed as a sign of christian holy war! Next time u comment bring some common sense with you..oh sorry..i understand its your pathetic religion which made you like this..may allah guide you to islam

  28. AHMED M AWAL says:

    WITH ALL DUE RESPECT I WILL BE READY ANY TIME TO DEBATE DR. SHAROOSH OR ANY CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ABROAD.IF YOU DONT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE THEN THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR RELIGION.

  29. vinod says:

    Dr. Anis Shorrosh is a wonderful person who loves Jesus Christ, saviour of the world. I love him and may God bless him abundantly for his future endaevour.

  30. saira says:

    Assalam o alaikum

    We should all get knowledge about our religion and then go and see what other religions have to say we born muslims think we know enough about our religion but in fact we don’t.And the more we come closer to Islam we will realize it is the truth and get to know its beauty.

  31. ali says:

    he is the deceiver and now god exposed him OR did he realize islam is truth and was devastated :
    Anis-Shorrosh-ARRESTED

  32. omidkhan says:

    i read Ghassan cliamed many things but Mashallah brother IBN Anwar gave him a perfect answer,i Remembered late shikh Ahmad Deedat he used to say if you corner them they will say that they don believe in that.in Ghassan’s case he just disapread.lol its very funny also very sad its soooooooo true the verse from the holly quran they have eyes but they see not,they have hears but they hear not nor they anderstand.

  33. bilal dafedar says:

    Assalam alaikum m very impressed by d way brother IBN anwar replies to the questions Alhamdulillah may ALLAH bless nd show us all the right path AMEN.

  34. aisha yusuf says:

    islam is the most beautiful religion that cannot be compared to any,it is light upon light and ALLAH has promised to protect it from any harm,

  35. Bull says:

    The fact is, Allah is a pre-Islamic deity that was a pagan god.
    He was worshipped as the father of three daughters.

    Ramadan is a pre-Islamic custom and the black stone in Mecca is an idol temple. The pagan practise of kissing the stone was even
    kept in Islam! Muhummad therefore made some concessions in his new religion so that people would follow him. i.e. he kept pagan practices and gods. (he just changed the meaning a bit).

    Allah is therefore clearly not the God of the bible and there is no salvation in him. Salvation is only through being cleansed by the blood of Gods chosen Lamb and repentance. Washing yourself every day and doing good works will not cover your sins.

    I watched a video of Anis preaching the truth to muslims in South Africa and they attacked him.

    When people havn’t got an answer thats what they do. They get emotional and logic goes out the window.

  36. Kalu Shah says:

    I read all the comments. These are interesting. I would like to reply to Bull.

    If Allah is a pre-Islamic deity, then what do the Arab Christians and Arabic speaking Jews call Him as? They also address Him as Allah; you may be knowing that Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic—all belong to the Semitic languages group. Therefore, you can’t blame Muslims alone for the terminology.

    Ramadan is a pre-Islamic custom? Fine. Jews also have the same custom. In fact, Judaism and Islam share many similar customs. Judaism, Christianity and Islam—all retain several pagan rituals. But what Christianity does is totally against the real teachings of Abraham which is it permits and preaches idol worship, of course of a man who himself prescribed strongly against it. Don’t you know the famous saying in Deuteronomy Ch-6, Vr-4: Shema Yisraela! Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ecchad? You say Jesus died on the cross. Well, cross was a pagan symbol. You still wear it as a sign of holiness. Moreover, if Jesus is God in deed, tell me, how can God die whereas God is immortal? A man who could not save himself from His own kinspeople plotting against Himself and also from the vicious Romans (the killers of God later embraced the religion preached by God in human form! Truly, pathetic), how could he save others? And if He went back to the Heavens bearing all the sins of a particular people, i.e. Christians, how can others be saved by Him? And why should He save others either? If He is bearing all your sins on His shoulders, then why do Christians go to the churches and confess to the priests and beg for salvation whereas salvation has been granted on them even before they are born?

    You are right. Allah is not the God described in the Bible manufactured by Paul. Because, Allah is the One without any death (unlike Christ), He has no image, no statue, no progeny, no wife.

    If your beloved Dr. Shorrosh is so much eager to preach truth, just kindly ask him to do that in front of the BJP-RSS-VHP of India. He may be asked to do the same amongst the Jewish people. he may not see the sun the next day.

  37. The Bull says:

    Hi Kalu

    Remember, Jesus didn’t want to save himself from being executed. He willingly gave himself to the cross (read the gospels). He died for the sins of the whole world and this was prophesied specifically in Daniel 9, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Anyone who becomes a Christian by confessing their sins to God through Jesus Christ will be saved.

    Idol worship is forbidden and I too disagree with the un-Christian Catholic tradition of venerating and praying to statues. You don’t need to ‘beg’ for salvation to a priest either. You need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and repent of sin.

    You could render the word ‘one’ as ‘united’ in Deuteronomy 6:4. There are plenty of examples in the bible that demonstrate God as a multi-personal one. For example Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 and Micah 5:2. Genesis 1:26 says ‘let US make man in OUR image’. Isaiah 48:16 seems to support the trinity very plainly. The angel of the Lord is God almighty (Judges 13:22) and elsewhere.

    Allah is not the generic Arabic name for God. It is the name of an ancient pagan idol. Why in other translations of the quran do they not use the generic name for God in that language? YHWH is the name of God.

    The haj was performed before Islam where people honoured a myriad of Gods including Allah. They would even perform it naked (before it was banned). Clearly Islam has its origins in paganism.

    Are you saying that muslims attacking Anis is OK because the BJP-RSS-VHP of India and the Jewish people would attempt to kill him as well?

    God Bless

    The Bull

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Hi Bull
      ‘Remember, Jesus didn’t want to save himself from being executed. He willingly gave himself to the cross (read the gospels). He died for the sins of the whole world and this was prophesied specifically in Daniel 9, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Anyone who becomes a Christian by confessing their sins to God through Jesus Christ will be saved.’

      Was Jesus really willing to give himself to the cross? That would be the image given in the last of the four gospels after much modification and editing. The earliest records that we have indicate that Jesus was not at all willing to be crucified e.g. Matthew 26:39. He was quite hesitant to face death. That portrayal is removed from John which reflects the theology of the author who thought Jesus as having total control over the situation as he was ‘God’ after all. No, Jesus did not have to die for the world or anyone for that matter to be saved. I have illustrated this point here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-no-blood/. I have already addressed Isaiah 53 here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....isaiah-53/.

      ‘You could render the word ‘one’ as ‘united’ in Deuteronomy 6:4. There are plenty of examples in the bible that demonstrate God as a multi-personal one. For example Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 and Micah 5:2. Genesis 1:26 says ‘let US make man in OUR image’. Isaiah 48:16 seems to support the trinity very plainly. The angel of the Lord is God almighty (Judges 13:22) and elsewhere.’

      No, you cannot render the word echad in the Shema or Deuteronomy 6:4 as “united”. There is not a single Bible in English that has ever translated echad as united. I doubt very much that you can read Hebrew either. God does not suffer from multiple-personality disorder. He is but one person carrying different attributes. Isaiah 7:14 cannot be referring to Jesus as the context shows that the sign was meant for the king at that time who was being addressed by Isaiah i.e. King Ahaz. It is disingenuous to tear it out of its historical and textual context and transport it thousands of years later on Jesus. Further more, the key section in the verse ‘ha almah harah vi yeldeth’ is in the imperfect tense and Alfred Kolatch and others have shown that the woman was already pregnant when the verse was written and so should not be regarded as a virgin. The word used is almah and not bethulah which would be the synonym for parthenos in Greek for virgin or a person that has never had a sexual encounter. Almah simply means ‘young woman’ and she does not necessarily have to be a virgin. I have addressed Isaiah 9:6 here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....isaiah-96/ . As for Genesis 1:26 and the use of plural pronouns refer to my article http://unveilingchristianity.w.....or-plural/

      ‘Allah is not the generic Arabic name for God. It is the name of an ancient pagan idol. Why in other translations of the quran do they not use the generic name for God in that language? YHWH is the name of God.’

      The above has been discussed and elucidated here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-moon-god/

      ‘The haj was performed before Islam where people honoured a myriad of Gods including Allah. They would even perform it naked (before it was banned). Clearly Islam has its origins in paganism.’
      Following your logic historians like Tom Harpur must be right in their conclusions that because there are parallels to Jesus in ancient pagan myths such as Mithraism Christianity must have its roots in paganism.

      ‘Are you saying that muslims attacking Anis is OK because the BJP-RSS-VHP of India and the Jewish people would attempt to kill him as well?’
      Physical assault on Anis Shorrosh if it were true is just as unacceptable as the physical attack and massacre of thousands in Numbers 31.

    • Kalu Shah says:

      Hey Bull,

      Thanks for your reply. I’d try my best to reply this time. If you find anything offensive in mine, please don’t hesitate to admonish me.

      I have told earlier: the Deu. 6:4 means the “Lord” is one. And Jews do support One God and One God only. The word “Ecchad” is a Hebrew one which means “Single” or “Undivided”; it does not mean “united” which you claim to buttress yourself right. Listen sir, when things get united, they do become one, but even then, they maintain their respective distinction (s). So, you can’t term God as those things. HE IS ONE, OK? Moreover, you say “united”. Go and request any Jew/Unitarian Christian and say God is unitedly One. I am afraid you will be in deep waters.

      Where do you find such meaningless things that Allah is not the generic name of God in Arabic? Yes, it was the name of a pagan deity in pre-Islamic Arabia. But, then you have to consider the pagan rituals of your own faith too. Like the Halloween, Valentine’s Day, Christmas to name a few. Of course, your use of the Latin and Greek languages whose speakers were pagans; the first allegedly “murdered” Jesus and the second, considered as the “fathers” of western civilisation invented lesbianism. Yet, they are highly revered.

      You know what your problem is? You can’t tolerate your criticism. You can criticise others including their very sensitive issues but when you face a fight back, that is unjust, according to you. I did not say the Muslim attacking on Anis was right. I just suggest that if Anis is so brave and eager to preach truth, why doesn’t he do that thing in those areas or to those people, whom I mentioned? Or, why does not he do that in his native Palestine and Jews of Israel? Muslims physically harassed him; that is definitely disgusting. But in India, he would have been burnt alive and fed to the dogs. An Australian missionary, Graham Steyn, along with his two children (very young), were killed and burnt inside his jeep. Also, Indian government kicked out Christian missionaries from India as they were not only Christianising people, but also inciting those in north east India to wage violent armed activities to secede from the Indian mainland. Another thing: in 2008-09, Christian converts were massacred, raped and ousted from a village in UP with the incitement by the RSS-VHP and committed by the villagers themselves. India stands second in religion related violence on earth.

      • The Bull says:

        Hi Kalu

        Thanks for you response. I totally relate to you and your sensitivity is admirable. I would be horrified at the thought of my own faith being in error and so this business is really quite an emotional one for all of us. It takes real guts to critically examine those things that are at the foundation of our lives and try to make sense of it all. The good thing is that God is here to help us.

        In response to your entry I would begin by saying that salvation is of the Jews. This in itself is a very disturbing and offensive notion for Islam because of the rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael and even Jacob and Esau. This rivalry continues to this very day!
        God established his covenant with Isaac not Ishmael (Genesis 17:19). Now some of the children of Ishmael and Esau have gone back to Isaac and Jacob over the years and have found salvation.

        Ishmael cannot establish his own system to reach God apart from Isaac/Israel. He must go back to Israel! What Islam purports is that another system was set up by Ishmael and Abraham to reach God through the Kaaba concurrently with Israel. This is simply not true. It is impossible and there is absolutely no evidence of it. There is no record of it, no dealings of another people with God, no deliverance from Egypt, no Mt. Sinai, temple or priestly class, Ark of the Covenant, holy of holies e.t.c. No glory, no record, no nothing.

        Now what you see with Israel is a pure and holy system that periodically was defiled by bad kings and idolatry and then corrected. What you have with Islam is outright paganism outside of Gods covenant to begin with. This paganism and false idol worship was supposedly sanctified and corrected by Mohammad after having been corrupted, however, it was never holy in the first place and is outside of Gods covenant. Mohammed kept many of the pagan practices. Islam is like Roman Catholicism that kept the pagan practices and repackaged it so that there was something of familiarity for the people. It also stopped the people from rejecting the ‘new’ religion.

        Christmas day and other practices appear to have been affected by paganism ,however, they play little or no importance to the faith itself which cannot be said of Islam and its practices, which are at its very core. Halloween? It’s the first I’ve head of it being a Christian festival. It’s rooted in devilry!

  38. doctortim says:

    is the bull feeling alright? christians eat thier god and drink his blood. practice such as this was literally practiced in the past. the greek pagans also used to do something similar. they also used to make buffet out of thier gods.

    there are so many verses in the new testament and christian practices which parrell pagan religions that only DISHONEST people deny them.

    bull’s new testament is written in greek
    does he not know that many words in his greek new testament are of PAGAN origin.

    why are you a dirty hypocrite?

    parthenos USED for mary was ALSO used for goddesses. so lets make a link between mary and goddesses.

    how did jesus the 100 % human die for the worlds sins? this dumb theology need millions of jesus’ to die for the worlds sins because their are millions of humans

    if one person sins
    and that sin means eter nal hell

    then how does 6 hours on the cross mean “died for world sins” ?
    jesus TEMPORARY suffering and temporary DEATH at best could only save 1 human .

    what is funny is that the father allows his 100 percent human nature to be killed , but does not lay one finger on his cosmic nature.

    then he REWARDS himself with his own created reward lol

    god reward himself.

    the bull says catholics are wrong in calling out to thier priests

    I SAY your god IS WRONG for BEING aPPEASED/pleased by the deed of the romans. the deed which MURDERED your god in flesh.
    your god like CATHOLICS is USING ROMAN deed AS A FREAKIN intermediary TO FORGIVE man kind. your god and catholics are one and the same.

    there are innocent children and babies BURNT to death. these DEATHs are 1 millions times heart breaking than the murder done to your god.

    • The Bull says:

      You said “christians eat thier god and drink his blood. practice such as this was literally practiced in the past. the greek pagans also used to do something similar. they also used to make buffet out of thier gods. ”

      No we don’t. We are not Roman Catholics.

      You said “how did jesus the 100 % human die for the worlds sins? this dumb theology need millions of jesus’ to die for the worlds sins because their are millions of humans”

      Romans (5:19) : For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

      You said : “there are innocent children and babies BURNT to death. these DEATHs are 1 millions times heart breaking than the murder done to your god.”

      Not so. He bore the sins of the entire world in his body.

  39. doctortim says:

    ” YHWH is the name of God.”

    one person who know hebrew language says,

    Later redactors of Jewish literature didn’t like the mention of other deities, so they perverted their presence in the literature. We see the act in process when Baal names in the literature are changed to insults, eg Ishbaal is changed to Ishbosheth and Meribbaal is changed to Mephibosheth, comparing accounts in Samuel with those in Chronicles. With Asherah a process was initiated in which the goddess began to be superseded by her symbols.

    But in 1 Kgs 15:13 Maacah makes a horrid thing (ie an idol) for Asherah. In 1 Kgs 18:19 the prophets of Baal are mentioned with the prophets of Asherah. 2 Kgs 21:7 has Manasseh making a carved image for Asherah. So, sometimes when Asherah is mentioned it is the goddess and at others it is a representation that has superseded her.

    But her mention doesn’t end there. Her symbol is the tree and one of her sacred places is the grove, so see how many times the naughty Judahites get found “under every green tree”. Married to Yahweh, as she is in the archaeological record, she is the queen of heaven and under that title she is also mentioned in the bible. And while the tree is a symbol for Asherah, the old symbol for Yahweh was the pillar (massebah). You’ll note that after the dream of the ladder Jacob set up a sacred pillar. More interesting though, when Joshua made a covenant with the people, in Josh 24:26 he set up a pillar under an oak tree in the sanctuary of the lord. There you have Yahweh and Asherah together in the sanctuary.

    ..

    so one can say that your pagan yhwh has been REwritten .
    think about this
    if jews say that your VERSION of yhwh IS WRONF, then WHAT about the ANCIENT israelites who battled with each other?

  40. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    Matthew 26:39 agrees with John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:10 in that it was Gods will to ‘give his only Son’ and that ‘it pleased God to bruise him’. 1 Peter 1:20 and Revelation 13:8 confirm that it was Gods will (before time began) to sacrifice Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Isaiah 53 makes perfect sense in this context. God is outside time and in a sense those future events had already taken place; remember much of the bible is prophecy.

    What Jesus is saying in Matthew 26:39 is quite powerful. In effect he is saying that if there is some other way to forgive sins please think about that now because I am literally going to go through hell. Jesus says let Gods will be done so he was still willing. If you use Matthew 26:39 in your argument then you have to also pose this question to yourself: why did God want Jesus to die on the cross? He is Gods perfect sacrifice and the bible warns ‘how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation’ (Heb 2:3).

    The angel said that Jesus would save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Jesus himself said in Matthew (26:28) that his blood was shed for many for the remission of sins!
    Jesus was sacrificed on Passover. Just like in Egypt during the first Passover a lambs blood was shed to save the people; see the connection! It is no co incidence that Jesus was sacrificed on Passover! Passover is a very obvious for-shadowing of Christ.

    Remember also what baptism is. It is identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ which is what makes forgiveness possible, through his blood. What is quite remarkable is that the Israelite system of sacrifices came to an end shortly after the death of Christ. The temple was destroyed and the old system was done away with because it was a fore shadow of the final and permanent event. Where are the sacrifices for sins now?? Ask yourself that question.

    Look up Strong’s concordance definition for ‘one’; echad. A man and woman come together to become ‘one’ yet they are two. A cluster of grapes is one cluster, yet has many. The Hebrew word yachiyd in the bible is very interesting in contrast. This is translated as ‘only’ in some places implying a more solitary or ‘lonely’ ‘one’.

    You Said: ‘Following your logic historians like Tom Harpur must be right in their conclusions that because there are parallels to Jesus in ancient pagan myths such as Mithraism Christianity must have its roots in paganism.’
    The difference is this: Christianity doesn’t borrow its ideas from Mithraism. Islam is basically paganism repackaged and modified. You can’t hijack a pagan system and then say this is now pleasing to God. It’s not.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      ‘Matthew 26:39 agrees with John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:10 in that it was Gods will to ‘give his only Son’ and that ‘it pleased God to bruise him’. 1 Peter 1:20 and Revelation 13:8 confirm that it was Gods will (before time began) to sacrifice Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Isaiah 53 makes perfect sense in this context. God is outside time and in a sense those future events had already taken place; remember much of the bible is prophecy.’

      Matthew 26:38 does not say that it was God’s will that Jesus gets crucified. It powerfully shows that Jesus was hesitant with whatever tribulations that may befall him later. Hence he prays for the ‘cup’ to be removed, but not as he wills it but as the Father wills it. This shows the humility and subservience of Jesus to the One who sent and appointed Him i.e. God.

      ‘What Jesus is saying in Matthew 26:39 is quite powerful. In effect he is saying that if there is some other way to forgive sins please think about that now because I am literally going to go through hell.’
      You are rather contradicting yourself. You said that ‘it was Gods will (before time began) to sacrifice Jesus Christ for the sins of the world.’ Just so I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus is God right? If that is so then he and the Father along with the Holy Spirit had conferred together in their ‘Triune’ existence and willed ‘before time began’ that the son would come to die for the sins of the world. How then can you in the same breath claim that Jesus ‘is saying that if there is some other way to forgive sins please think about that now…’? It is ludicrous for him to countenance alternative solutions than what he had planned with the Father and the Holy Spirit before time began as you put it. It is clear that the idea of God committing suicide and demands the torture and suffering of a completely innocent human being who is supposed to be He Himself in some mysterious inexplicable way is beyond the realm of reason and understanding. There are numerous verses throughout both the Old and New Testaments clearly showing that God is able to forgive without the shedding of blood e.g. Hosea 6:6, Mark 2:5, Jeremiah 36:3, Proverbs 16:6 etc. To suggest that God desires the cruel and barbaric death of an innocent even more so when that innocent is supposed to be His only son invites insurmountable logical problems. We can discuss these logical problems in depth if you wish.

      ‘Look up Strong’s concordance definition for ‘one’; echad. A man and woman come together to become ‘one’ yet they are two. A cluster of grapes is one cluster, yet has many. The Hebrew word yachiyd in the bible is very interesting in contrast. This is translated as ‘only’ in some places implying a more solitary or ‘lonely’ ‘one’.’
      I do not have to look up Strong’s concordance(though it is here beside me now) to know what echad means. Will you please show me one version of the Bible that has translated the echad in Deut. 6:4 as united instead of one? Trinitarians often like to play with semantics and juggle about with words to try and prove their case. One may rightfully say of a football team that it is ONE team. Nevertheless, that ONE team consist of several parts each independent of the other existing as different beings and persons under one banner due to one shared purpose or one shared goal. The oneness is that of purpose and not of number or essence. A cluster of grapes consists of several grapes that are independent of each other. If one is taken out of the cluster the others remain intact. The singular use of ‘cluster’ denotes a group of items that share similar attributes connected to one branch though each is totally independent of the other. In the Trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-dependent. One cannot be separated from the other lest the ‘Godhead’ fails. If I said I am one being that does not mean that I am one being with multiple personality disorder which you are attributing to God. If God says throughout the scriptures time and again that He is one and never three, it is only safe to conclude that He is numerically one without partners or associates in person-hood or being.

      ‘You Said: ‘Following your logic historians like Tom Harpur must be right in their conclusions that because there are parallels to Jesus in ancient pagan myths such as Mithraism Christianity must have its roots in paganism.’
      The difference is this: Christianity doesn’t borrow its ideas from Mithraism. Islam is basically paganism repackaged and modified. You can’t hijack a pagan system and then say this is now pleasing to God. It’s not.’

      How do you know Christianity does not borrow its ideas from Mithraism? You contend that Islam is of pagan origin because it has similarities with ancient pagan cults. The same and the case can be made even more forcefully in the case of Christianity. Mithras which predates Christianity was thought to be born of a virgin birth, had twelve followers, was killed and resurrected, saviour of the world and he was also supposed to be the light of the world. Any of these sound familiar? If you’re honest with yourself then the answer is yes. Following your line of reasoning shall we conclude that Jesus is just a repackaged Mithra? It is no wonder that Celcus in the 2nd century charged Christianity with plagiarising concepts of others and incorporating them into its religion. Shall we agree with him?

      You argued that Allah must have been a pagan God because the pagan Arabs worshipped Him before Islam. I have rebutted and refuted this claim. I will post the link again here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-moon-god/. In fact, Biblical narrative shows that YHWH or Yahweh as it has now come to be pronounced was worshipped as a pagan idol.
      “An Israelite Bronze Bull, dating from the period of the Judges (c. 1200 B.C.E.). Found on a “high place” or cultic site in the hills of Samaria, this figurine (7 inches long, 5 inches high), symbolizing power and fertility, apparently was associated with the worship of Yahweh as well as Baal (cf. Judg. 6:25)

      It is likely, however, that the story of Exodus 32 rests upon a tradition much older than Jeroboam I and indicates that some ancient circles believed that the bull could legitimately be used to symbolize the supremacy of Yahweh.” (Bernhard W. Anderson (1988). The Living World of the Old Testament. Harlow, England: Longman Group UK Limited. pp. 104)

      In a footnote to the above quotation Anderson mentions the following:
      “See Frank M. Cross, “Yahweh and El” [112], 73-75, who argues that in northern circles the Bull was a symbol of the high god ‘El, with whom Yahweh was identified…”

      He continues on page 105 saying, “The ensuing “feast to Yahweh” was in good Canaanite style, with sacrifices, eating and drinking, dancing, and perhaps sexual orgies (verses 5-6).”
      Who is Bernhard Anderson? He was an ordained Methodist pastor and a professor at princeton Theological seminary and several other noted higher learning institutes. Shall we conclude that Yahweh is a pagan God? Following your line of inquiry and argument we should.

  41. doctortim says:

    “Just like in Egypt during the first Passover a lambs blood was shed to save the people; see the connection! It is no co incidence that Jesus was sacrificed on Passover! Passover is a very obvious for-shadowing of Christ.”

    you’re a joke bull s .

    was your lamb god also burnt to death? did it cry like a lamb? did it have 4 legs? you don’t know jack s about the pass over lamb , it did not forshadow your god. the israelites who killed lambs in egypt were mocking the egyptian belief. for example a cow is a holy god in hindusim, when muslims kill the cow the hindu is upset. in the same way he lamb was the egyptian god.
    btw your god was brutally MURDERED , I C no connection

    the israelite had to put his HAND ON THE animals head before sacrifice it.

    i c no israelite putting thier hand on your lamb gods head

    i c romans put thier hand on your god, not the israelites.

  42. doctortim says:

    “What is quite remarkable is that the Israelite system of sacrifices came to an end shortly after the death of Christ. The temple was destroyed and the old system was done away with because it was a fore shadow of the final and permanent event. ”

    because you make PATHETIC connections, i would like to make logical bridging.

    the jewish bible is replete with prophecies of a second exile, a second loss of the Temple, and they are explicit about the cause . IDOLATRY. What other idolatry did 1st centrury ce jews engage in EXCEPT for worship of a jew called jezuz??

    And while it may have been a small minority, God would have known full well that that small seed would sprout into a world-wide idolatry encompassing 2 billion+ people.

  43. doctortim says:

    why DID TEMPLE sacrifices CONNTINUE FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS after your lamb god’s death? think about it, your god after his supposed ressurection was hanging out on earth for 40 days and then disappeared , but jewish SIN SACRIFICES CONTINUED FOR 40 YEARS. so why didn’t they CEASE @ the moment your blood/lamb/meat god was nailed? and note that the deciples of your lamb god were possesed with spiritual powers and also had a holy ghost god filling them. so why temple sacrifices continued for 40 years?

    the trinity gods never a good at doing things on time, are they?

  44. doctortim says:

    “You said that ‘it was Gods will (before time began) to sacrifice Jesus Christ for the sins of the world.’ Just so I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus is God right? If that is so then he and the Father along with the Holy Spirit had conferred together in their ‘Triune’ existence and willed ‘before time began’ that the son would come to die for the sins of the world. How then can you in the same breath claim that Jesus ‘is saying that if there is some other way to forgive sins please think about that now…’? It is ludicrous for him to countenance alternative solutions than what he had planned with the Father and the Holy Spirit before time began as you put it”

    i have a much better explanation than the trinitarians . the jesus of the new testament assumed that crucifixion was going to be a “piece of cake” or “walk in the park” , but to his shock he was amazed at how painful the crucifixion was. not only did the deciples abandon him, but jesus’ weaking FAITH assumed that god left him also. jesus then blasphemed and asked why he was forsaken. in the past, before crucifixion, jesus always gets away from trouble. the jews attempt to stone him, jesus runs away. the herod attempts to kill him, jesus’ parents rescue jesus by taking him to egypt. the jews attempt to take out jesus, the crowds SAVE jesus. so i assume that jesus assumed that the father was going to rescue him from the cross, but this did not happen and jesus lost faith in the father. why asks why you are being abandoned? why? you only ask a WHY if you don’t know the ANSWER. david sinned when he asked why so did jesus. both sinners in the same pond.

  45. doctortim says:

    “Allah is not the generic Arabic name for God. It is the name of an ancient pagan idol. Why in other translations of the quran do they not use the generic name for God in that language? YHWH is the name of God. ”

    these fools just get you angry. before i aswer your why question, i ask you which jesus before the jesus in the nt, was called “yhwh” or which jewish translation renders yhwh as yeshu?

  46. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    You said ‘Matthew 26:38 does not say that it was God’s will that Jesus gets crucified.’ Literally you are correct; but it is inherently obvious because Jesus had already prophesied that it would happen in Matthew 26:2. Father God and Jesus both knew that Jesus would be crucified. This was the ‘cup’. Also, Jesus knew that this was the only way for the world to be forgiven. His statement to ‘let this cup pass’ echoes his humanity. Have you ever thought or mulled things over with someone? If you are about to be bayoneted, wouldn’t you say something? Like ‘please no’? I’m satisfied that there is no real contradiction here. This is exactly why you must believe in Jesus because there was and is no other way. He went through hell so you wouldn’t have to go there. To disregard this is to, in the words of Jesus, ‘….die in your sins.’ (John 8:24).

    You said ‘There are numerous verses throughout both the Old and New Testaments clearly showing that God is able to forgive without the shedding of blood e.g. Hosea 6:6, Mark 2:5, Jeremiah 36:3, Proverbs 16:6 etc.’

    What you need to see in these verses is that it was faith , mercy, truth and repentance in the context of the covenant of atonement and sacrifice begun with Abraham then Moses and ending with Jesus. God did what was necessary to meet his demand for infinite justice; the sacrifice of that which was perfect. It was an outrageous thing to do but it demonstrates his great love of the human race.

    All the fundamental ideas and concepts in Christianity have their roots in the Hebrew holy writings. Jesus himself said that the scripture must be fulfilled concerning him (Luke 24:44-45). As for Yahweh being worshiped as an Idol, it did occur, but the bible is totally against it, so what’s the problem? God put an end to it. End of story.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      ‘You said ‘Matthew 26:38 does not say that it was God’s will that Jesus gets crucified.’ Literally you are correct; but it is inherently obvious because Jesus had already prophesied that it would happen in Matthew 26:2. Father God and Jesus both knew that Jesus would be crucified. This was the ‘cup’. Also, Jesus knew that this was the only way for the world to be forgiven. His statement to ‘let this cup pass’ echoes his humanity. Have you ever thought or mulled things over with someone? If you are about to be bayoneted, wouldn’t you say something? Like ‘please no’? I’m satisfied that there is no real contradiction here. This is exactly why you must believe in Jesus because there was and is no other way. He went through hell so you wouldn’t have to go there. To disregard this is to, in the words of Jesus, ‘….die in your sins.’ (John 8:24).’

      I have already argued that if both Jesus and the Father together with the Holy Spirit had planned the whole event beforehand then what you said about Jesus’ petition to God that he was asking for any alternative possibilities is a contradiction. It is you who is bound to the alleged unity of the New Testament. I do not believe Jesus prophesied about his own death so as to pave the way for forgiveness and atonement. You have repeated time and again that Jesus knew that the only way for people to be forgiven is for him to experience death on their behalf. Scripture wise, I have shown that this is totally unsound. You said that Jesus’ utterance ‘let this cup pass by me’ echoes his humanity. Are you suggesting then that at this particular juncture in his life his humanity overcame his divinity and so his thoughts were muddled and he went under the delusion that there may be other ways to do things, albeit his divine self knew full well that there was no other way? How exactly did the human nature overpower the divine nature? Was the divine nature subservient to the human nature? If that is so then was God i.e. the Divine nature under the shackles and dominion of the human nature which undermines the former’s glory as sovereign Lord? Numerous other logical conundrums exist in this strange and unacceptable hypostatasis mumbo jumbo. The real question though is whether Jesus’ prayer was answered. According to Hebrews 5:7-8 it certainly was “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered.”

      Dr. Paul Ellingworth explains the verse as follows:
      “σωζω here has the literal meaning of preservation or rescue from physical death (cf. Σωτηρία in 11:7), not the extended meaning of preservation from eternal death, as in 7:25… σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου may mean either “prevent him from being killed” (cf. Pr. 15:24; Jas. 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4) or “rescue him by raising him out of death” (cf. Wis. 14:4; Jn. 12:27; absolutely, Lk. 8:50; more generally, of rescue from the threat of death, Ps. 107:20 [LXX 106:19]; Ho. 13:14; Sir. 51:12). If the reference is specifically to Gethsemane, the first alternative is more likely…” (Paul Ellingworth. The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Commentary on the Greek Text (1993). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)

      Of course he would be heard. After all, Matthew 21:22 says “if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”

      I believe Jesus did prophesy. It was that he would be saved.

      We will prove from Jesus’ own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33.

      The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds,

      12. Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.

      13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!

      The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books,

      “And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”(Matthew 21:11)

      “But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house.”(Matthew 13:57)

      “But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”(Mark 6:4)

      “Then he said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country.”(Luke 4:24)

      “And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:”(Luke 24:19)

      “And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us”(Luke 7:16)

      “Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.”(John 7:40)

      Some of you may raise the question, “If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ‘I cannot die outside of Jerusalem’ instead of ‘a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame’ which is in the third person.” That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah.

      Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ‘cannot’ mean? If I said, “I cannot go to the USA” does it mean I can? It’s a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads,

      πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ

      The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young’s Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus,

      “but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.”

      God’s Word Translation also translates it in the following manner,

      “But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It’s not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem.”

      So “cannot” as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or “no prophet can” as found in the NIV translation for the verse really means NOT POSSIBLE.

      Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself.

      By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, “Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?” Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly.

      Where did Jesus allegedly die?

      According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let’s just take one of the four.

      “And when they came to a place called Gol’gotha (which means the place of a skull),”

      So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified.

      Where was Golgotha?

      According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com.....lgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.

      “What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha—an Aramaic word meaning “the skull.” Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city.” (emphasis added)

      HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary informs,

      “John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem’s city walls”. [19]

      Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us,

      “Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12).” [20]

      According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem,

      “The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBch.....0/Golgotha) (emphasis added)

      According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem,

      “hill near Jerusalem,” via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “place of the skull,” from Heb. gulgoleth “skull.” So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)” (GOLGOTHA.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. .) (emphasis added)

      In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem),

      “Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”

      The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, “I am near my house.” What does it mean? Does it mean you’re inside your house? NO. It means you’re in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus’ own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation.

      1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33

      2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33.

      In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,”Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock.” Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur’an clearly declares in Chapter 4.

      “What you need to see in these verses is that it was faith , mercy, truth and repentance in the context of the covenant of atonement and sacrifice begun with Abraham then Moses and ending with Jesus. God did what was necessary to meet his demand for infinite justice; the sacrifice of that which was perfect. It was an outrageous thing to do but it demonstrates his great love of the human race.”

      I think you are overstating your case here quite a bit. If it was God’s plan and divine decree how can it be outrageous? The fact is it was never His decree nor plan and that is why it is outrageous. Those passages and verses that I cited make no mention of blood sacrifice at all. The paralytic in Mark 2:5 had all his sins forgiven and there was not a shed of blood dropped in accordance with the Levitical instructions to blot out those sins. Rather he was forgiven without blood as were the people on Jonah 3 and numerous others in the Old Testament and New Testament too. How exactly is killing one’s own beloved son a show of one’s great love? You ould cite John 3:16 to convey His love for the world. Does that mean that He loved the world more than His own son that He would not hesitate to let him die an agonising and brutal death for killers, rapists and thieves? If the Father was so loving why did He not come Himself to die instead of having His BELOVED son die? It is the mark of a good and loving Father to protect his offspring and stand in the firing line if need be. There is no show of love here but only insanity. Can you imagine in a court of law 5 rapists and killers who have murdered 70 women and raped them are brought before a judge and found guilty of their crimes. The judge pronounces the punishment that it is death bu crucifixion for their horrendous criminal activities. Instead of giving them the punishment the judge calls for his little boy of 3 years old…an innocent little boy to appear before the court. The judge cum father looks over to the son and says, “My son…you know how much I love you…you know that you love me so much too.” You see those 5 men there. They are very evil. But I love them too. So this is what I’m going to do..my son you will have to die for them. The son then begs the father, “LET THIS CUP PASS BY ME”. The Father says, “I love you my so, but this has to take place.” The son is dragged out of the court, crucified and killed. The Father lovingly without a shed of tear looks at the 5 rapists and killers and give them each a blow kiss and says, “I love you all and your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more.” If this were to take place in any civilised world, the judge would be castrated and killed by angry mobs for such audacity. Yet, it is this very picture that you have painted for God. The atonement process in Christianity is the most dastardly lie ever concocted against God. In the words of Major Yeats Brown:
      “”NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT

      DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON

      HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY

      RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS

      HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS

      CURSE.”

      “All the fundamental ideas and concepts in Christianity have their roots in the Hebrew holy writings. Jesus himself said that the scripture must be fulfilled concerning him (Luke 24:44-45). As for Yahweh being worshiped as an Idol, it did occur, but the bible is totally against it, so what’s the problem? God put an end to it. End of story.”
      You’re now fibbing sir. It was you who argued that because Allah was worshipped as an idol(which is historically unsubstantiated) then he must be a pagan idol. I have shown that historically Yahweh was worshipped as a pagan idol mentioned in your own book, elucidated by Christian scholars and finally agreed by you, yet you would not pronounce the same judgment as you did on Allah. You simply dismiss my counterargument by saying the Bible forbids idol worship. Do you think the Qur’an and Sunnah does not? In fact, if you are honest with yourself then you will know that Islam is the only ancient religion that has survived today without any graven images. We don’t even draw our Prophet’s picture! If Islam is idolatrous that would make Christianity far more idolatrous for all its images and icons. If you are honest you would not have charged Islam with this hogwash that Allah is an idol when it is the same word used in the Aramaic peshitta for God as I have elucidated in my article is Allah a moon God. Jesus must have worshipped a moon God when he called on Allah in his native Aramaic language. Poor Jesus was an idolater according to The Bull.

  47. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    You said “I do not believe Jesus prophesied about his own death so as to pave the way for forgiveness and atonement.”

    You may not believe it, but the bible does! Who do I believe? Ibn Anwar or the word of God?

    You said ‘Scripture wise, I have shown that this is totally unsound.’

    Matthew 26:2: ‘…..the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified”.
    Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

    Regarding the prayers of Jesus to save him from death etc that they were heard:
    Remember Jesus was saved from death at earlier times because his ‘time was not yet’. Also, many of his prayers were answered in the form of miracles etc.

    You said “The paralytic in Mark 2:5 had all his sins forgiven and there was not a shed of blood dropped in accordance with the Levitical instructions to blot out those sins.”

    Jesus had the power to forgive sins because it was he who would appropriate that forgiveness on the cross…Mark 2:10 “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins…”

    You Said: “The atonement process in Christianity is the most dastardly lie ever concocted against God.”

    Men who are rapists and murderers deserve to be put to death. I Agree. They are put to death or given ‘life’ if caught in any civilized country. Remember the authorities are there to meet out justice and are Gods servants in that sense. However, if one of these criminals is sorry for his actions there is still hope of redemption, however not for this world.

    The bible says that all have fallen short of Gods glory (Rom 2:23). We all need redemption. Remember, we can all be rapists and murderers in our heart without lifting a finger (Matthew 5:28). A loving God extends hope to all people…even Hitler or Saddam Hussein…if they sincerely repent and believe. The old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.

    Allah historically, if not an Idol, was still worshipped as the father of three daughters. He was the local god of the prophets tribe. He is clearly not the God of the bible and does not have his name or nature. The kabba was originally an idol temple etc. The system upon which Islam was built has its origins outside of the faith and it has kept many of the pagan practices. What has happened is that Islam has tried to align itself with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give itself credibility.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Why have you not responded to the logical fallacies that I pointed out pertaining to your salvation/atonement doctrine? Are they too difficult for you or do you concede the point with your silence (qui tacit consentit)?
      Those two verses from Matthew that you have cited do not convince me that Jesus specifically prophesied his own alleged crucifixion. Remember that those passages are postfactum i.e. after the fact and as such has little probative value. It is quite possible that they were woven by the anonymous authors of the gospels to promote their high christology propaganda. An alternative view is that Jesus knew the circumstances and reality of environment in which his ministry operated as had an inkling though not perfect knowledge of the possible sufferings that he may have to face later. Prof. Father Raymond E. Brown explains in the following manner:
      “His scriptural reflections on his fate may well have oriented the more detailed scriptural reflections by his followers after his death. There is nothing implausible, then, in thinking that Jesus may have made use of Daniel and Isaiah in such reflections. Paradoxically, however, it may be impossible to determine precisely how much usage of these OT books attested in the NT did come from Jesus himself.” (Brown, R.E.(1994). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the grave : a commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. pp. 1487)

      Jesus may well have predicted his possible future fate by careful contemplation of the realities of his time just as you would predict the rain by the sight of dark clouds. Brown continues:
      “While a certain amount of foresight could have come to Jesus from reading the signs of the times, and more foresight from reflecting on what had happened to prophets and the just ones in the past…” (Ibid.)

      So the prophecies that you allege prove Jesus’ foreknowledge of what is allegedly claim regarding him i.e. death by crucifixion stand at odds with the historical method.

      Jesus had the power to forgive sins because it was he who would appropriate that forgiveness on the cross…Mark 2:10 “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins…”

      The above argument may only be accepted as sound given the assumption that the event at Calvary truly happened as the Christians believe which is itself based on the assumption that the Biblical narratives are divinely inspired literature. None of these have been proven in our discourse so far. I believe I have shown that there are reasonable reasons to dismiss the notion that the righteous Jesus was shamelessly crucified at Golgotha here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....ucifixion/. Christians often point to the Levitical sacrificial rites as foreshadowing the ultimate sacrifice that is later to be realised by Jesus. However, they often fail to show the ability of forgiving and remitting sins by virtue of a future sin sacrifice. There is absolutely no scriptural foundation that a future sacrifice can vitiate past or current sins. Hebrews 9 says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. There must be blood according to that verse in order for forgiveness to take place. But in the case of the paralytic in Mark 2 there was no blood at the time of forgiveness at all. You said that Jesus would appropriate that forgiveness on the cross”. The word games of Trinitarians are really astonishing. The man was already completely forgiven without the crucifixion. There was no need for an appropriation since he was already forgiven at that very moment. Jesus did not say, “Your sins will be forgiven truly when I die on the cross later.” Rather he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” This is indicative of the fact that God forgives without needing blood. God is not a vampire that he seeks a pound of flesh for Him to be able to forgive. Don’t make God out to be a Shylock. Further more, if Jesus as you say was able to forgive because he was the one who would appropriate that forgiveness then why were the disciples able to forgive according to Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23? Did they appropriate their forgiveness on crosses too?

      “Men who are rapists and murderers deserve to be put to death. I Agree. They are put to death or given ‘life’ if caught in any civilized country. Remember the authorities are there to meet out justice and are Gods servants in that sense. However, if one of these criminals is sorry for his actions there is still hope of redemption, however not for this world.”

      I do not think you have satisfactorily replied to what I said. I will reproduce it here. I will ask you to read it again carefully and reply to the philosophical problems posed:
      I think you are overstating your case here quite a bit. If it was God’s plan and divine decree how can it be outrageous? The fact is it was never His decree nor plan and that is why it is outrageous. Those passages and verses that I cited make no mention of blood sacrifice at all. The paralytic in Mark 2:5 had all his sins forgiven and there was not a shed of blood dropped in accordance with the Levitical instructions to blot out those sins. Rather he was forgiven without blood as were the people on Jonah 3 and numerous others in the Old Testament and New Testament too. How exactly is killing one’s own beloved son a show of one’s great love? You ould cite John 3:16 to convey His love for the world. Does that mean that He loved the world more than His own son that He would not hesitate to let him die an agonising and brutal death for killers, rapists and thieves? If the Father was so loving why did He not come Himself to die instead of having His BELOVED son die? It is the mark of a good and loving Father to protect his offspring and stand in the firing line if need be. There is no show of love here but only insanity. Can you imagine in a court of law 5 rapists and killers who have murdered 70 women and raped them are brought before a judge and found guilty of their crimes. The judge pronounces the punishment that it is death bu crucifixion for their horrendous criminal activities. Instead of giving them the punishment the judge calls for his little boy of 3 years old…an innocent little boy to appear before the court. The judge cum father looks over to the son and says, “My son…you know how much I love you…you know that you love me so much too.” You see those 5 men there. They are very evil. But I love them too. So this is what I’m going to do..my son you will have to die for them. The son then begs the father, “LET THIS CUP PASS BY ME”. The Father says, “I love you my so, but this has to take place.” The son is dragged out of the court, crucified and killed. The Father lovingly without a shed of tear looks at the 5 rapists and killers and give them each a blow kiss and says, “I love you all and your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more.” If this were to take place in any civilised world, the judge would be castrated and killed by angry mobs for such audacity. Yet, it is this very picture that you have painted for God. The atonement process in Christianity is the most dastardly lie ever concocted against God.

      “The bible says that all have fallen short of Gods glory (Rom 2:23). We all need redemption. Remember, we can all be rapists and murderers in our heart without lifting a finger (Matthew 5:28). A loving God extends hope to all people…even Hitler or Saddam Hussein…if they sincerely repent and believe. The old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.”

      It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.” Some years later an author wrote the gospel according to Luke and he refutes Paul’s claim inadvertently when he writes about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6) The key word is blamelessly which is translated from amemptoi which is derived from memphomai meaning “above reproach because morally pure”. You said “A loving God extends hope to all people”…A loving God extends hope to all people and if he ever had a son I think that love and hope would reach the son too unless He’s very loving to all except His own son. What kind of a God is that? You claim that the “old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.” But Christian theology teaches that even after grace Christians are not sinless. They are as prone to sin as any other. So called born again Christians are not angels. In many cases they have been shown to be the worse of the lot e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Kent Hovind etc.

      “Allah historically, if not an Idol, was still worshipped as the father of three daughters. He was the local god of the prophets tribe. He is clearly not the God of the bible and does not have his name or nature. The kabba was originally an idol temple etc. The system upon which Islam was built has its origins outside of the faith and it has kept many of the pagan practices. What has happened is that Islam has tried to align itself with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give itself credibility.”

      You are merely repeating yourself. For the last time I have addressed the above here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-moon-god/. You claim that the ka’ba was originally an idol temple. This would be right if the pagan arabs were the original forefathers of all Arab people. Both unbiased Christian and Jewish scholars admit that the Arabs are the cousins of the Jews in that they are the children of Ishmael. Was Ishmael a polytheist? The records show otherwise. Historically the stronghold of the Arabs have always been Bakka(also occurs in the Old Testament as a place of pilgrimage) which is another name for Mecca. If Ishmael and his immediate descendants were monotheists following their father Abraham, it is only reasonable to conclude that their base of dwelling Mecca was also a place that glorified monotheism. According to history the Arabs later deviated from their monotheistic forefathers and embraced polytheism instead. It was at this juncture that they introduced idols into Mecca. Your faulty argument would be akin to someone saying that the temple of Jerusalem was originally a pagan temple when tracing its orgins back to King Menasseh who turned the temple into a polytheistic shrine and discontinue from that point onwards. The temple of Jerusalem was as much a polytheistic centre in the time of Menasseh as Mecca was in the time of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. In short, every single point you have made are flimsy at best and have been soundly refuted alhamdulillah.

  48. rob says:

    Gregory J. Riley in Resurrection Reconsidered writes some interesting things about relevant ancient customs at the tombs of the dearly departed:

    One of the more intriguing aspects of ancient custom, and most revealing concerning the substantial existence of the dead, was the cultus at the tomb. The dead required, in the first place, proper burial and lamentation, to prevent the disembodied pscyche (φυχη) from returning from the underworld to punish those who thus wronged it. This is visible as early as Homer . . .

    Piety prescribed that the surviving members of a family care for their dead at the grave site. Relations brought offerings of meat, fish, bread, cakes, wine, oil, water, flowers, et alia, to the tomb and shared them with the deceased, usually on the anniversary of death. . . .

    Meals for the dead were occasions for family members to express solidarity not only with the departed, but also with each other. In the words of Cumont, “No religious ceremony was more universally performed in the most diverse regions of the Empire than this cult of the grave. At every hour of every day families met in some tomb to celebrate their anniversary by eating the funeral meal.” Tombs were frequently supplied with dining furniture, and especially an offering table. The table was often fitted with depressions and carvings in the shape of saucers and containers for food and liquids. The covering slab of the grave itself was often this table, overlaying the remains of the deceased just below. Holes or tubes through the stone or earth into the grave conveyed the offered food to the dead family member. Concerning the social dimension of the meal for the dead as it continued in the early Church, Snyder writes:

    The celebration was very social. It strengthened family relationships, either blood or primary, by including extended generations. The service itself included anointing of the stone of mensa, antiphonal singing, dancing, the agape or refrigerium meal with all the prayers and acclamations attending that.

    The dead participant in the meal apparently enjoyed the experience. . . . The singing, eating, drinking, dancing and requests to the dead made this occasion an experience of family “life” with one of its honoured members. (pp. 44-47)

  49. rob says:

    Riley continues:

    Comparison of these customs with the resurrection narratives of the New Testament is quite instructive. Offerings of food for and meals with the dead were common and important to the culture at large. The body of the deceased was cremated or buried, yet offerings were poured into the graves in both cases . . . . [T]hese dead without bodies were able to eat, drink and talk with the living. It seems but a small step to the post-Easter events. (p. 47)

  50. rob says:

    “Another idea of his that I like is that Paul possibly makes a word play on the “New Covenant in the Land of Damascus” in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first syllable in Damascus (DMShK) is the Hebrew word for blood (“dam” DM) and the last shares a root with “shakah” (to give to drink -Strong’s 8248). The Scrolls also have an idea of the “cup (chos) of God’s wrath (cha’as).” Damascus in Greek is Damakos, making for a possible interlanguage word play meaning “blood cup.” That the DSS group, like James and Judaism in general, forbid the consumption of blood, this type of word play would have antagonized them, like the Spouter of Lies who built “a Worthless City upon blood and erect[ed] an Assembly upon Lying, for the sake of his Glory, tiring out Many with a Worthless Service and instructing them in works of Lying” (1QpHab 10:10, Eisenman).”

    now that is interesting .

  51. rob says:

    one day before jesus brutally is MURDERED , he has a meal with his deciples? a meal to remember him? this is my blood and this is my flesh. 1 day before he is murdered? this same guy whose DECIPLES were not ready to give their bodies to protect his body , but ran like cowards. you would expect him to throw HARSH words @ his deciples for thier lACK of faith and cowardice like he does in marks version, but in johns version he has a meal with them before he is murdered? whoever was in control of the narrative made up a lot of bull s .

  52. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    You said “Jesus may well have predicted his possible future fate by careful contemplation of the realities of his time just as you would predict the rain by the sight of dark clouds”
    No. Jesus said that he must be crucified so that the scripture be fulfilled. (Matthew 16:21-23).

    You said “Those two verses from Matthew that you have cited do not convince me that Jesus specifically prophesied his own alleged crucifixion. Remember that those passages are postfactum.”
    What? Every record written is post-factum? Something is said or happens and then it is written down? You are effectively calling Jesus and the eyewitnesses liars! It seems that when faced with this apparent bible truth you turn around and say the bible is corrupted. When the bible says something you agree with you use it as ‘evidence’ and when you don’t agree with it you say that it is corrupted! You can’t have your cake and eat it!

    You said “The above argument may only be accepted as sound given the assumption that the event at Calvary truly happened as the Christians believe which is itself based on the assumption that the Biblical narratives are divinely inspired literature. None of these have been proven in our discourse so far.”

    The ‘proof’ is in this: would all those eyewitnesses die for something that is a lie. What gave the once cowardly disciples a willingness to die for the faith? They believed in the resurrection and bet their lives on it. Look at all the miracles e.g. Sauls conversion. What made him go from killing the believers to becoming one? Mushrooms? LSD? The sincerity of the record is for all to behold. These are also convincing words from Paul: Acts 26:26: “For the King…. .KNOWS these things (prophecy, death, resurrection etc)…SINCE THIS THING WAS NOT DONE IN A CORNER.” (emphasis added). i.e the whole world witnessed it.

    You said: ‘There is absolutely no scriptural foundation that a future sacrifice can vitiate past or current sins.”
    A: “….the Lamb (Jesus) slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13v8). In other words the sacrifice is greater than any time constraint.

    You said “This is indicative of the fact that God forgives without needing blood.”.
    Why then was the tabernacle/temple made to shed blood to forgive sins?

    You said : ‘It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.””
    Have you fallen short of Gods glory? If not, you are on par with God and you god is not very great! Both the psalmist and Isaiah declare that there is no one who does good (Psalm 14:3, 53:3) and that all our righteousness is as filth rags (Isaiah 64:6) and we are all unclean.

    You said: ‘Some years later an author wrote the gospel according to Luke and he refutes Paul’s claim inadvertently when he writes about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6) The key word is blamelessly which is translated from amemptoi which is derived from memphomai meaning “above reproach because morally pure”.”

    Job too was upright and without blame (Job 1:8) yet he still needed to repent (42:6)and admit his sin (14:16). Interestingly he said God covered his sin (14:17) and spoke of his ‘Redeemer’ (19:25)! He also asked the question : “….How can a man be righteous before God?” (9:2) (i.e. he can’t be). The prophet Isaiah says that our sins may be as scarlet, yet they will be white as snow! (Isaiah 1:8). How? The Redeemer and Saviour!!!
    Isaiah 61:10: “..he has covered me with the robe of righteousness..”. Therefore Zechariah and Elizabeth are ultimately ‘above reproach’ because they are living in faith and are imputed righteousness (aka Abraham).

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I apologise for the delay in my response. I was tied up with an interfaith dialogue that I was invited to. Anyway, let’s get down to business. You said:

      You said “Jesus may well have predicted his possible future fate by careful contemplation of the realities of his time just as you would predict the rain by the sight of dark clouds”
      No. Jesus said that he must be crucified so that the scripture be fulfilled. (Matthew 16:21-23).

      You said “Those two verses from Matthew that you have cited do not convince me that Jesus specifically prophesied his own alleged crucifixion. Remember that those passages are postfactum.”
      What? Every record written is post-factum? Something is said or happens and then it is written down? You are effectively calling Jesus and the eyewitnesses liars! It seems that when faced with this apparent bible truth you turn around and say the bible is corrupted. When the bible says something you agree with you use it as ‘evidence’ and when you don’t agree with it you say that it is corrupted! You can’t have your cake and eat it!

      I am not calling Jesus or any particular eyewitness at this juncture a liar. I have already shown according to the testimony of Christian scholars like Father Professor Raymond E. Brown that Jesus did not really know the exact nature of his future fate. What eyewitnesses are you talking about? Scholars today know that the gospels themselves were written anonymously and were not eyewitnesses to the events. This is testified by Father Prof. Brown himself as he says:
      “The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary critical scholarship.” (Raymond E. Brown. Response to 101 Questions on the Bible(1990). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 59-60)

      By carefully examining the records we know that information were fudged and distorted..sometimes even outright fabricated. Take for example the story of Jairus cited in Mark and Matthew. Analyse the two versions of the story carefully and you will see how the anonymous authors doctored the story to suit whatever agenda that they had. As the Cambridge Companion to the Bible says:
      “The primary sources of our knowledge of Jesus, therefore, are the gospels: the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But as the title “gospel” (good news), implies, and as the opening word of Mark makes explicit, they are not objective reports but propaganda.”
      “Since Mark is the shortest of the three synoptic gospels, it has sometimes been assumed that it is an abbreviation of Matthew. Careful comparison among the synoptic Gospels(Matthew, Mark, and Luke) shows, however, that both Matthew and Luke presuppose the contents and the order of Mark, though each of the other writers modifies Mark in order to fulfill hiw own special aims… Passages in Mark that the church later found difficult are either omitted or basically modified.”(Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. p. 447) You say that I take bits of the Bible and reject others out of convenience. This is a false belief. You have the assumption that the entire Bible in your hand is an inspired revelation from God. You have the onus to prove that every single information in the Bible that you believe is reliable…a position that has been forsaken for ages by Christian Biblical scholars themselves. Hardly any serious Christian scholar believes in inerrancy and those who pretend to believe in it due to their lifelong commitment to conservative circles also at times admit to textual corruptions or unresolved difficult texts e.g. Mark 1:2. Christians themselves have played fast and lose with “scripture”. Shall I take you down memory lane on Biblical history?

      The first Christian canon in Christian history was actually put together by Marcion whom the Church or so-called Orthodoxy deemed a heretic and his teachings heretical. Christian scholars have argued that it was Marcion’s canon that gave the ‘orthodox’ Christians the impetus to canonise scripture. [2] So, can you imagine that the first canon of scripture was instituted by a pagan? Prof. Bart D. Ehrman says, ” Marcion was the first Christian that we know of who produced an actual “canon” of scripture – that is, a collection of books that, he argued, constituted the sacred texts of the faith.” [3] His canon consisted of the following books,

      - Luke, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. He totally rejected the Old Testament. [4]

      Iranaeus’ canon which came about at around the end of the 2nd century(200 years after Jesus) consisted the following books,

      - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelations, Hermas and Acts. [5] That’s 23 books with Hermas in it.

      Another major early Christian figure is Tertullian. He was Iranaeus’ contemporary who later became a ‘heretic’ when he converted to Montanism. His canon consisted the following books,

      - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelations and Jude. He also accepted Hermas until he converted to Montanism. He knew about Hebrews and attributed it to Barnabas, but rejects it.[6] That’s only 21 books or 22 if Hermas is concluded.

      We have yet another contemporary scholar of Iranaeus by the name Clement of Alexandria. His canon consisted the following books,

      - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel according to the Egyptians, Hebrews(which he attributes to Pauline origin), Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Jude, Barnabas, Acts, Revelations, Apocolypse of Peter, 1 Clement, Didache and Hermas. [7] That’s over 31 books all together!

      The so-called Muratorian Canon is an anonymous fragment that has 85 lines in it. According to Sanders its origin is Roman. The fragment lists books that are counted as apostolic and that should be read in the church. The following are the books that are accepted as canonical in the Muratorian fragment,

      - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 & 2 John, Jude, Revelations, Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocolypse of Peter. It also accepts Hermas, but not as sacred text. [8]

      Origen who came to the scene around 254 introduced the idea of ‘acknowledged and disputed’ books. His acknowledged books or canon consist of the following,

      - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelations and Acts. [9] That’s only 21 books.

      Eusebius’ canon or acknowledged books are the same with Origen’s, but he hesitated to accept Revelations as scriptural. [10]

      Where is the canon of 27 books? It was not until 367 years after Jesus in the late 4th century that the canon of 27 books came about. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria was responsible for this. [11] Athanasius’ canon consists of the 27 books in the following order,

      -Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Apocolypse of John(Revelations). [12]

      Professor Roland H. Bainton summarises the development of the Christian New Testament canon as follows,

      “First the letters of Paul were accepted, and the four Gospels, and the book of The Acts. The other writings of our New Testament were slower in finding a place and even John’s Gospel had a struggle. So did he book of Revelation. Hebrews, II Peter, Jude, James, and the second and third etters of John only gradually were marked upon the ruler*. Not until the fourth century was the canon closed.” [13]

      [2] Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus(2005). New York: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 34 ; Matthew Black, J. N. Sanders. Peake’s COmmentary on the Bible(1987). Ibid. p. 680

      [3] Bart D. Ehrman. Ibid. p. 33

      [4] J. N. Sanders. Op. Cit. p. 680

      [5] Ibid. p. 681

      [6] Ibid.

      [7] Ibid.

      [8] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Scriptures(2003). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 331 ; J.N. Sanders. Ibid.

      [9] J.N. Sanders. Ibid.

      [10] Ibid.

      [11] Op. Cit. Misquoting Jesus. p. 36

      [12] Op. Cit. Lost Scriptures. p. 340

      [13] Roland H. Bainton. The Church of Our Fathers(1941). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. p. 29

      In fact, each Christian denomination has its own set of canon different from others:

      The Catholic Church (Canon: 73 books)

      The Catholic church as we have mentioned carries a canon of 73 books that includes Tobit, Judith, Greek additions to Esther(from the LXX), Sirach, Baruch, the letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three Jews, Susanna, and Bell and the Dragon), 1 and 2 Maccabees. [14]

      The Protestant Church (Canon: 66 books)

      Unlike the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church does not follow the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate in its canon of scripture. Rather, it follows the Hebrew canon and the 27 books of the New Testament. [15] This yields a total of 66 books as mentioned at the beginning of the article.

      Greek Orthodox Church (Canon: 77 books)

      The canon of the Greek Orthodox Church includes the all the books of the Catholic canon and in addition to that it also includes 1 Esdras, the prayer of Menasseh, Psalms 151, and 3 Meccabees. That means the Greek Orthodox canon consists of 77 books. The Slavonic canon on the other hand includes 2 Esdras, but designates 1 and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other eastern churches have 4 Meccabees as well. [16]

      The Coptic Church(Canon: 29 books in NT)

      The canon of the Coptic Church contains all the 27 books, but, adds the two epistles of Clement.[17] This means the Coptic New Testament canon consists of 29 books.

      The Ethiopic Church (Canon: 81 books)

      The Ethiopic canon is divided into what is called the ‘narrower’ canon and ‘broader’ canon.

      “The Ethiopic church has the largest Bible of all, and distinguishes different canons, the “narrower” and the “broader,” according to the extent of the New Testament. The Ethiopic Old Testament comprises the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as all of the deuterocanonical books listed above, along with Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and other nations. The New Testament in what is referred to as the “broader” canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the “narrower” New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81.” [18]

      [14] Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan. The Oxford Companion to the Bible(1993). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 79

      [15] Ibid.

      [16] Ibid.

      [17] Bruce M. Metzger. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development(1997). New York, United States: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 225

      [18] Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan. Op. Cit. p. 79

      I am only following this glorious tradition of picking and choosing that was started by Christians themselves. So if you have someone you feel like blaming, point it at your Christian brethren. You are seriously deluded if you think that the whole Bible is a unified text with each part supporting the other.

      You said:

      You said “The above argument may only be accepted as sound given the assumption that the event at Calvary truly happened as the Christians believe which is itself based on the assumption that the Biblical narratives are divinely inspired literature. None of these have been proven in our discourse so far.”

      The ‘proof’ is in this: would all those eyewitnesses die for something that is a lie. What gave the once cowardly disciples a willingness to die for the faith? They believed in the resurrection and bet their lives on it. Look at all the miracles e.g. Sauls conversion. What made him go from killing the believers to becoming one? Mushrooms? LSD? The sincerity of the record is for all to behold. These are also convincing words from Paul: Acts 26:26: “For the King…. .KNOWS these things (prophecy, death, resurrection etc)…SINCE THIS THING WAS NOT DONE IN A CORNER.” (emphasis added). i.e the whole world witnessed it.

      The ‘proof’ is in this: would all those eyewitnesses die for something that is a lie. What gave the once cowardly disciples a willingness to die for the faith? They believed in the resurrection and bet their lives on it. Look at all the miracles e.g. Sauls conversion. What made him go from killing the believers to becoming one? Mushrooms? LSD? The sincerity of the record is for all to behold. These are also convincing words from Paul: Acts 26:26: “For the King…. .KNOWS these things (prophecy, death, resurrection etc)…SINCE THIS THING WAS NOT DONE IN A CORNER.” (emphasis added). i.e the whole world witnessed it.

      Again, your response is typical of an evangelist. You think you’re the first person to give me that argument? I’ve heard that hundreds of times from all the Christians I’ve met throughout my experience as a student of comparative religion. It is your assumption based on tradition that those disciples died due to their beliefs held today by mainstream Christians. There is not a single shred of evidence that they actually died believing in the death and crucifixion of Jesus as you do. The New Testament wasn’t even present during their lifetimes. In fact, historically we now know that there were several streams of Christianities from the first century onwards. Many of them were eventually stamped out by what later became ‘orthodoxy’.

      You said:

      You said: ‘There is absolutely no scriptural foundation that a future sacrifice can vitiate past or current sins.”
      A: “….the Lamb (Jesus) slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13v8). In other words the sacrifice is greater than any time constraint.

      What does from the foundation of the world mean??? How do you understand that it means no time contraints on the alleged sacrifice??? Why do you not take it as it reads i.e. literally? Because if you did it makes no sense! The world has no foundation like a building! Clearly, this John who wrote that piece thought that this world is like structures found on earth like houses where structural foundations exist. The alleged sacrifice took place at Calvary which is on a mound and not at the foundation of the world which is a mythical place to begin with. There is no basis for the idea that Jesus’ alleged sacrifice transcends the bounds of time in the Old Testament. Neither is there evidence for the validity of human sacrifice. If anything the Old Testament clearly prohibits it! God prohibits killing a man and likens it to immorality yet it is claimed that this is the gateway to salvation? How much more anachronistic can you get? You do realise that you have conveniently ignored many other points that I brought up in my previous replies including the prophesy from Luke and the arguments that show that the crucifixion is barbarity of the highest order. You have failed to produce a single counter-rebuttal which leads me to conclude that you are nothing but a blind sheep following the herd.

      You said:
      You said “This is indicative of the fact that God forgives without needing blood.”.
      Why then was the tabernacle/temple made to shed blood to forgive sins?

      Fantasizing that you can refute an argument by asking a question? lol Allow me to produce once more what I wrote so the readers can see how inadequate your response is:
      There is absolutely no scriptural foundation that a future sacrifice can vitiate past or current sins. Hebrews 9 says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. There must be blood according to that verse in order for forgiveness to take place. But in the case of the paralytic in Mark 2 there was no blood at the time of forgiveness at all. You said that Jesus would appropriate that forgiveness on the cross”. The word games of Trinitarians are really astonishing. The man was already completely forgiven without the crucifixion. There was no need for an appropriation since he was already forgiven at that very moment. Jesus did not say, “Your sins will be forgiven truly when I die on the cross later.” Rather he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” This is indicative of the fact that God forgives without needing blood. God is not a vampire that he seeks a pound of flesh for Him to be able to forgive. Don’t make God out to be a Shylock. Further more, if Jesus as you say was able to forgive because he was the one who would appropriate that forgiveness then why were the disciples able to forgive according to Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23? Did they appropriate their forgiveness on crosses too?

      You said:
      You said : ‘It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.””
      Have you fallen short of Gods glory? If not, you are on par with God and you god is not very great! Both the psalmist and Isaiah declare that there is no one who does good (Psalm 14:3, 53:3) and that all our righteousness is as filth rags (Isaiah 64:6) and we are all unclean.

      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Yes, Job is described as perfect a few times by God Himself and as sinless in the same chapter. So before chapter 14 verse 16 he was perfect before God’s eyes and sinless. That means it is not impossible for a person to be perfect of sinless. How can a man be righteous before God? How is asking that question equates to saying it’s impossible???? lol..you are funny. It is quite clear that Job was a humble servant and as such he did not go around parading his righteousness which would have not made him righteous if he did. It is because he was righteous that he asks the question “how can a man be righteous before God? I would advice you not to hijack and lie on your own scriptures. The reason Zechariah and Elizabeth were declared righteous before God and perfect is NOT because of the verse in Isaiah 61:10. It was because they obeyed the laws and commandments of God perfectly(ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι). They were merely adhering to Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man.”

      In conclusion, you have been soundly refuted yet again. Try harder.

  53. mrkiller says:

    “The ‘proof’ is in this: would all those eyewitnesses die for something that is a lie. What gave the once cowardly disciples a willingness to die for the faith? They believed in the resurrection and bet their lives on it.”

    1) the deciples were killed because they claimed that the jewish god got it handed to him by the PAGAN romans

    this would piss off a lot of jews. yhwh who always whoops pagans all of a sudden gets whooped by pagans? BLASPHEMY!

    2) DECIPLES were killed because they were doing what jesus was doing , that is turning families against families. introducing a pagan heathen idea and causing disruption.

    3) deciples were killed because they broke jewish laws .

    (Mark 6:18) Stephen was killed for calling the Sanhedrin names. (Acts 7) According to Acts, Peter was to be killed because it pleased the people. (Acts 12:1-4)

    but Peter was killed for telling wives not to have sex with their husbands.

    so don’t try to decieve the people with your old shi tty christian apologetic argument that the deciples died because of the ressurection of your god. the 1-3 list could be the reasons , not the reasons you give.

    YOU CANNOT SHOW us in your christian history that

    1) A person claiming to see a physically resurrected Jesus
    was KILLED because of this.

    get this through your christian brains:

    “The author does not give any details surrounding Peter or Paul’s death. We don’t know when, we don’t know where, we don’t know by whom (Roman? Jewish? Other?), and of course the most important—we don’t know why. “

  54. mrkiller says:

    “What? Every record written is post-factum? Something is said or happens and then it is written down? You are effectively calling Jesus and the eyewitnesses liars!”

    1. there is no scriture which predicts your god
    2) paul himself need to twist scritpure to find your god in it
    3) paul admits that the only way one can see his version of judaism in the ot is by receiving the holy spirit lol
    4) you said sometihng is said then …, when did matthew WRITE his words down? how many YEARS after the alledged crucifixion? and matthew did not have ot in his laps tryin to make sense of why his god was a crucified failed god? see, christian evidence depend on old testament. no oTHER FREAKIN corroberation . no other EXTERNAL sources ,EXCEPT rape of verses in old testament

    the point is you are using as eyewitness people who are writing decades after the alleged events.

  55. mrkiller says:

    “No. Jesus said that he must be crucified so that the scripture be fulfilled. (Matthew 16:21-23).”

    in your new testament people mistaken elijah/john the baptist for jesus. they think jesus is some other guy ressurected

    the post ressurection account say the women thought your god was a gardner

    others were unable to recognise him when he was talking with them

    who was the guy on the cross? sure it was jesus?

  56. mrkiller says:

    “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” (2 Cor 11:30-33)

    LOL THE GUY WAS A COWARD AND WASN’T ‘TRANSFORMED’
    hE HAD NO GUTS TO FACE THE KING aRETAS ABOUT hIS god ressURECTION! the coWARD DEPENDED ON hIS DECIPLES to sAVE his BACON ! LOL LOL LOL

  57. mrkiller says:

    HERE is the version in acts
    “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.” (Acts 9:23-25)

    LOL LOLOLOL OLOL

  58. mrkiller says:

    why was the blood needed? lets just assume that the hebrews had an obession with blood. so what? like pagans they had an obsession with blood and like pagans they were superstitious. but wtf has that got to do with jesus’ blood n flesh? was jesus roasted, burnt and eaten? did he have 4 legs and cried like a sheep? did the jews place their hand on jesus’ head before jesus’ life went ? and in torah thier are sacrifices for the good in man. sacrifices for gratitude to god. so why would thier be gratitude sacrifices if man is evil mofo?

  59. mrkiller says:

    1 pet 2:22 thought isaiah made a prediction about jeeeezuz.

    check this verse out

    “3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

    honestly who reading the would think it fits jesus like a lego fits another lego? THERE IS NOT EVEN A HINT that the one who was despised was once the DARLING of jerusalem like jesus upon his entry.

    • The Bull says:

      How many people have been wounded for others transgressions (v8), opened not their mouth and lead as a lamb to the slaughter(v7), made an offering for sin (v10) and bore the sin of many (v12). I think it is reasonable to assume that only Jesus Christ fits this scenario! When you link these scriptures with others e.g. Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 22, Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 9:25 ONLY JC claims to fill these prophesies. Who else has? No one.

      MrKiller? What kind of image are you trying to portray anyway. It is not a good look for Islam.

  60. mrkiller says:

    The sacrifices that Job brought were not according to Jewish law, including the laws of the sin sacrifice and thus it makes no sense to compare his sacrifices to those of Jews.

  61. mrkiller says:

    have you ever thought that the romans or jews or others may not have given 2 tiny baby chit for the christian claim that thier god was raised from the dead? and instead of kicking the claimants a ss , why wouldn’t they attempt to REFUTE them and say that “well even among you christians their were disbelievers who did not believe that your god came back to life , cause some doubted ” or ” the body was draggred through the street” or ” we don’t care our gods are better than yours” ect?

  62. The Bull says:

    You said: “I have already shown according to the testimony of Christian scholars like Father Professor Raymond E. Brown that Jesus did not really know the exact nature of his future fate. ‘
    A: You and Mr. Brown use phrases such as ‘quite possibly’ and ‘may well have’. It is much easier and plausible to accept the scripture at face value. You have to believe in an enormous conspiracy theory that the entire NT message has somehow been totally changed from its original or that the eyewitnesses were liars in the first place. If the bible has been doctored with, where has this occurred on a level where its message has been compromised. Where does it show Jesus wasn’t crucified, that he didn’t die for our sins and that he doesn’t fulfill the scriptures? Show me where it differs from the ‘originals’.

    You said: ‘Passages in Mark that the church later found difficult are either omitted or basically modified’
    A: Where is the evidence? Where are the omitted verses and what are they? What verses were modified?

    You said: ‘What eyewitnesses are you talking about? Scholars today know that the gospels themselves were written anonymously and were not eyewitnesses to the events.’
    A: The earliest manuscripts we have available all have the title according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Mark was Peters ‘interpreter’ who of coarse was an eyewitness. It seems that Mark was written first and both Luke and Matthew used his material as a source. I would dispute that scholars ‘know’ that the gospels were written anonymously.

    You said: ‘Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD????’
    A: Jesus himself said ‘only God is good.’ In that sense no one is good and therefore everything we do is tainted by that. We can still do ‘good deeds’ but they are always going to be imperfect and therefore not truly good and righteous. They cannot redeem our souls or clear our imperfections.

    You said: ‘We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory’
    A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!
    You said: ‘There is not a single shred of evidence that they actually died believing in the death and crucifixion of Jesus as you do.’
    A: There is the bible isn’t there and don’t forget the resurrection! Didn’t they ‘turn the world upside down’. History has spoken.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said: “I have already shown according to the testimony of Christian scholars like Father Professor Raymond E. Brown that Jesus did not really know the exact nature of his future fate. ‘
      A: You and Mr. Brown use phrases such as ‘quite possibly’ and ‘may well have’. It is much easier and plausible to accept the scripture at face value. You have to believe in an enormous conspiracy theory that the entire NT message has somehow been totally changed from its original or that the eyewitnesses were liars in the first place. If the bible has been doctored with, where has this occurred on a level where its message has been compromised. Where does it show Jesus wasn’t crucified, that he didn’t die for our sins and that he doesn’t fulfill the scriptures? Show me where it differs from the ‘originals’.

      The reason why Dr. Raymond Brown uses terms like “may well” or “quite possibly” is due to the fact that when assessing history and historical material probabilities are at play. There is no ‘enormous conspiracy’ theory as you put it. Rather, we know from the written records that the anonymous authors edited and doctored their material to fit their agendas. I have cited several examples to this effect e.g. the story of Jairus. The fact of the matter is that we do not have the so called ‘originals’. The earliest manuscripts from 125 CE onwards are copies of copies of copies etc. You keep bringing up eyewitnesses…who are these eyewitnesses? We do not have their biographies or who they really were. It is not at all impossible that they are imaginary witnesses conjured up by their creative minds of the anonymous authors. It is more likely that some of those witnesses were misrepresented which is common today and even more common in the ancient days due to the lack of the methods of verification. You must read Geza Vermes’ and E.P. Sanders’(and others) writings on the historical Jesus. They illustrate just how much change, modification and invention happened as the anonymous authors weaved their tales. With regards to the crucifixion you should proceed to my article on it here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....ucifixion/. We know that he did not die for our sins because there is an abundance of scriptural evidence that contradict those that suggest the necessity for blood for God to forgive. Collate that with the logical and rational arguments that I have put forward in previous articles to which you have been silent thus far we have a rather strong case for the nullification of the idea of sin remission via the shedding of Jesus’ blood. Are you honestly asking me to show you where “it” differs from the originals? We do not have the originals to begin with which renders your question moot.

      You said: ‘Passages in Mark that the church later found difficult are either omitted or basically modified’
      A: Where is the evidence? Where are the omitted verses and what are they? What verses were modified?

      Wow, where shall I begin? Compare Mark 1:2 with Matthew 3:3. You will see that the anonymous author of Matthew omits the additional information provided in Mark. This is most probably because Matthew saw the mistake made by Mark in identifying a verse from Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3:1 as coming from Isaiah. The anonymous author of Matthew omits this difficult verse and skips to Mark 1:3 where Isaiah 40:3 is correctly quoted from the Septuagint. In Mark a simple straightforward story of the baptism of Jesus at the hands of John the Baptist is presented. Matthew on the other hand modifies the story and suggests that John was hesitant by saying that he is unworthy to baptise Christ, but eventually concedes after being permitted to do so. In Mark’s account John baptises for the remission of sins and simply baptises Jesus without any kind of scuffle or hesitancy. But this story does not agree with the higher Christological concern in Matthew’s agenda. What was the concern? Well, the idea that John the baptist baptising Jesus for the remission of sins shows low Christology. In the developed Christology of Matthew, Jesus must be given primacy in all things and he is of course a walking sinless being. How then can he be baptised for the purpose of sins remittance? To reconcile this problem Matthew edits this by adding Jesus’ permission which is sought by John showing the primacy of the former over the latter. That’s the first editorial amendment made by Matthew in the baptism account. The next alteration is found in the remark by the voice from heaven. Matthew changes the initial personal pronoun in Mark 1:11 ‘su’ to a demonstrative pronoun ‘autos’ i.e. ‘you’ to ‘this’. Whilst in Mark we have the messianic secret where Jesus time and again forbade his disciples from divulging his status as the messiah to others outside his clique in Matthew the secret is out of the bag even at the beginning of his ministry. Whilst in Mark the voice was heard only by Jesus since it addresses him directly as you, in Matthew on the other hand the voice is made to declare that Jesus is the beloved son to the people present by using the demonstrative pronoun. This and numerous other examples are what ‘the Cambridge Companion to the Bible’ means by ‘Passages in Mark that the church later found difficult are either omitted or basically modified’.

      You said: ‘What eyewitnesses are you talking about? Scholars today know that the gospels themselves were written anonymously and were not eyewitnesses to the events.’
      A: The earliest manuscripts we have available all have the title according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Mark was Peters ‘interpreter’ who of coarse was an eyewitness. It seems that Mark was written first and both Luke and Matthew used his material as a source. I would dispute that scholars ‘know’ that the gospels were written anonymously.

      Yes, but most of the earliest manuscripts of all the NT come from the third century onwards. Refer to my article with scanned pages from Barbara and Kurt Aland’s acclaimed book on the Greek manuscripts of the NT http://unveilingchristianity.w.....nuscripts/. Prof. Edwin D. Freed says:
      “Most NT scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous and that the present titles probably were not added until sometime in the second century. Because the form of the title is the same for every gospel, a title was probably given to each only after the gospels had been collected as a group of four. Then the name of a well-known person was included in the superscription of each gospel. But the superscription read,”the gospel according to,” not “the gospel by” Matthew or Mark or Luke, so the gospels as we now have them are anonymous.”(Edwin D. Freed. The New Testament, A Critical Introduction(2001). Wadsworth. p. 123)
      Prof. Raymond E. Brown also remarks:
      “Let me add that the designations that you find in your New Testament, such as “The Gospel According to Matthew”(note that the oldest designation is “According to” and not “of”), are the result of late-second-century scholarship attempting to identify the authors of works that had no identification.” (Raymond E. Brown. Response to 101 Questions on the Bible(1990). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. p.60)
      In fact, the first person to identify the gospels with their current titles was Iranaeus and no one else before him as Prof. G. A. Wells attests:
      “And so we find Iranaeus (bishop of Lyons about A.D. 180) naming all four as they are now named, and as the first to do so.” (G.A. Wells. Who Was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament Record(1989). Illinois, La Salle: Open Court. p. 1)

      You said: ‘Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD????’
      A: Jesus himself said ‘only God is good.’ In that sense no one is good and therefore everything we do is tainted by that. We can still do ‘good deeds’ but they are always going to be imperfect and therefore not truly good and righteous. They cannot redeem our souls or clear our imperfections.

      lol…So you are just going to ignore my whole explanation on Zechariah, Elizabeth and Job? Do you think that quoting Luke 18:19 is a sufficient rebuttal? The readers will agree that your rebutalls have been very insufficient and almost always conveniently ignore most of the points contended. The word ‘good’ used in the passage is ‘agathos’ which is used numerous times throughout the NT. The same word is used to describe the good believer and the good deeds he may do. For example in John 5:29 it says “καὶ ἐκπορεύσονται οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς,”. It says that ‘those who have done good(agatha, to the resurrection of life…”. In Matthew 7:17 Jesus speaks of the believers and evil does who are compared to a tree, “Even so, every good(agathon) tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.” The message of Luke 18:19 is not to deny the possibility of goodness in men, but rather to affirm the unique and unshared divinity of God. Jesus was merely humbling himself as he should being the righteous man he is and differ all good to God even though he was indeed good like all righteous saints and prophets.

      You said: ‘We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory’
      A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!
      You said: ‘There is not a single shred of evidence that they actually died believing in the death and crucifixion of Jesus as you do.’
      A: There is the bible isn’t there and don’t forget the resurrection! Didn’t they ‘turn the world upside down’. History has spoken.

      Hahahaha you have totally ignored my refutation and start preaching instead. Let’s see what I said one more time:
      Haha why do you feel the need to impose your false theology on me? We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory which necessarily implies that there was a time before the fall where a human being was on par with God’s glory! You see..like all other Christians every time you open your mouth or type something to advocate your false beliefs you refute yourself. It is quite amazing, isn’t it? What we believe about God is exactly what this verse says:
      “You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
      Do you truly believe that literally NO ONE DOES GOOD???? You must be a lunatic if you believe that. You know this sort of literalist mentality is what makes you and others like you a laughing stock. You refute your own book! You have already admitted that Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth at least according to scripture did good which afforded them God’s pleasure. If those verses you have cited is to be taken literally and for all of humanity throughout human history then they are meaningless and downright stupid. To claim that no one has done good is to say that the world is full of evil 100% which is as untrue as the Easter bunny. Well, maybe you believe in the Easter bunny? The thing is many Christians have defective comprehension of language. They are not familiar with the complexity of language. They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z. 1 John 2:20 says: “You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.” Do you really know all things? If you do tell me the exact nature of God? Or better yet, tell me who I really am and where I live? If you can’t then based on your method of interpretation the Bible is FALSE! 2 Samuel 17:14 says that all the men of Israel were present when Absalom was holding a council against his father, but reading the whole story one comes to know that NOT all of the men of Israel were actually present. The same goes with jeremiah 26:8. The fact is we know that there have been righteous people throughout history and God is pleased with them for the good that they did.

      Apparently, you don’t understand the necessary implication behind the word ‘fall’. Before there can be a ‘fall’ there must be rising or standing or sitting. If men fell short of God’s glory then there was a point of time when men stood on part with His glory BEFORE the fall! lol

      Try harder ;)

  63. mrkiller says:

    “How many people have been wounded for others transgressions (v8), opened not their mouth and lead as a lamb to the slaughter(v7), made an offering for sin (v10) and bore the sin of many (v12).”

    the amalekite babies and infants were murdered for the sins of thier ancient forefathers .

    the amalekite babies did not open thier mouth but cried in pain

    these poor children bore the sin of thier ancient forefathers who preceeded them 400 yrs ago

    but lets look at it another way, the guy who wrote the verses you quoted, where did it say MESSIAH ? or how do you know that the one who doesn’t open his MOUTH is BORN of a virgin? or the guy thought he was a god in human form? you can’t derive that can you? only unless you “connect the dots” by use of SPECULATION .

  64. mrkiller says:

    I QUOTE AGAIN:

    “3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

    honestly who reading the would think it fits jesus like a lego fits another lego? THERE IS NOT EVEN A HINT that the one who was despised was once the DARLING of jerusalem like jesus upon his entry.

    SHOW ME FROM THE VERSE THAT THE GUY WHO WAS DESPISED AND REJECTED WAS ONCE THE DARLING OF JERUSALEM. WELCOMED, CHEERED, LOVED, HAIL HOSANNAA ! ARRIVED ON A DONKEY CHEERED BY THE PEOPLE
    CROWDS LOVED HIM WANTED TO TOUCH THE HEM OF HIS CLOTHS

    THE WRITER SAID “HIS OUR FACES…” IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE IF HE IS DESPISED AND REJECTED AND HE WAS AQUAINTED WITH SICKNESS

    YOU THINK THIS FITS 1 DAY OF crucifICTION? AND NOTE IN YOUR SILLY ACCOUNTS, THE JEWS SAY DON’T STIR UP THE CROWD OTHERWISE THEY WILL RIOT, SO 2 DAYS LATER THEY STIR UP THE CROWD, BUT BEFORE THAT jesu s was STILL A HOT SHOT

  65. mrkiller says:

    bull, your god went around pissing off the jewish authourities. one day he went into the temple and turned over the tables and drove out the traders, he broke pagan law aswell as jewish law by this action. you mess with a mafia leader , u know you won’t get vip treatment, you mess with pontius pilates RULES , your finnished. jesus’ hooliganism landed him into big trouble. it isn’t no prophecy.

  66. mrkiller says:

    “3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with sickness; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

    i think hebrew just like arabic there is a madi (complete) and mudaari3 (incomplete) action. note the it is not ” he WILL BE DESPISED…”
    And it seems to be the guy who is suffering is suffering from somekind of skin disorder. it is the guys appearance which is causing others to “hide thier faces from him”

  67. The Bull says:

    You said: “The reason why Dr. Raymond Brown uses terms like “may well” or “quite possibly” is due to the fact that when assessing history and historical material probabilities are at play.”

    A: Yes, and for many reasons the probability is, he is wrong. It is not at all impossible that Osama bin Laden was smoking a cigar with Barak Obama in the white house when the seals team went in. I mean, where are the photos, where is the body and didn’t he work for the CIA?

    Your problem with Mark 1:2 and Matthew 3:3 is unwarranted because an omission is not a disagreement. Both Micah and Isaiah essentially say the same thing. I don’t see a problem. So too with the baptism of Jesus and the Jarius account; you would expect slightly different accounts from two different eyewitnesses. If anything it shows that the bible wasn’t carefully contrived to make it look acutely synchronous. The point is was Jesus baptized and was Jarius daughter raised from the dead?

    You may quibble about how many deck chairs were on the titanic but you miss the point, did it sink or not? Is there any evidence in history that the crucifixion did not occur apart from the vision of a prophet in a cave some 600 years later? Where are the glorious anti-bible manuscripts proclaiming that Christ was wonderfully saved from crucifixion by a slight of Gods hand? It is an Islamic fabrication.

    You said: ‘We know that he did not die for our sins’
    A: That is totally against everything written in the NT. You simply do not believe the NT. The testimony of Peter, Paul, Jesus and John you refute!?!?
    1 Peter 2:24, Ephesians 1:7, Revelation 5:9, Matthew 28:28 and more! Are you really going to bet your soul that the bible is a lie?

    Regarding Biblical accuracy:
    Yes, most manuscripts go back to within 300 years of the originals yet there are some to within 150 years. Compare this with the works of other documents from antiquity such as Plato, Aristotle and others who have a distance of closer to a thousand years or more from the originals with far fewer manuscripts. Who ever complains about this? There are over 20,000 manuscripts of the new testament. The problem with the NT is not in its reliability but rather its palatability.

    You said: ‘If men fell short of God’s glory then there was a point of time when men stood on part with His glory BEFORE the fall! Lol’
    A: That’s right. Adam and Eve were not short of Gods glory before the fall. They were made in his image and walked with God face to face. They were faultless and holy until the serpent came and beguiled them.

    You said: ‘They think that if a verse says “all” it must and always mean all, every..from A to Z.’
    A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual,

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You have committed a non sequitur. It does not follow that the unlikeliness of Osama smoking cigar instead of lying dead in the sea equals to the unlikeliness of “prophecies” fixed upon Jesus by anonymous authors with agendas to propagate. Simply saying that it is wrong does not make it so. It is an accepted fact amongst both conservative and liberal scholars that much of the NT material are fudged. If you wish to remain with those minority few that is your prerogative. We know that it is highly improbable that Osama could be smoking cigar with Obama in the White House due to the tight security in and around the entire parameter together with hundreds of officers, agents, secretaries etc. present. It is highly improbably that Osama could have been smuggled in to have tea and crumpets with Obama without raising alarms. On the other hand, changing information, modifying them to suit a certain viewpoint or agenda is highly probable in ‘historical’ material in the ancient world especially those that were later passed of as inspired revelation i.e. books of the New Testament. Harry Y. Gamble says:
      Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy.”(Gamble, H.Y.(1995). Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts.Yale University Press: New Haven & London. pp. 123-124)

      The noted Prof. Ehrman says:
      “The majority of textual variants that are preserved in the surviving documents, even the documents produced in a later age, originated during the first three Christian centuries.

      This conviction is not based on idle speculation. In contrast to the relative stability of the New Testament text in later times, our oldest witnesses display a remarkable degree of variation. The evidence suggests that during the earliest period of its transmission the New Testament text was in a state of flux, that it became standardized in some regions by the fourth century, and subject to fairly rigid control (by comparison) only in the Byzantine period.” (Ehrman,B.D.(1993). The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect Of Early Christological Controversies On The Text Of The New Testament. Oxford University Press: London & New York. pp. 28-29)

      The first person to canonise scripture was Marcion as noted by Ehrman, J.N. Sanders and others. Textual Critics know that Marcion edited and changed Paul’s texts in his corpus of canonised scripture to suit his theological beliefs, albeit despite his ‘heresy’ he was altogether pious and committed to his version of ‘Christianity’. This shows how easy it was to alter and change information at will if the one who was literate felt like it.

      You said:
      Your problem with Mark 1:2 and Matthew 3:3 is unwarranted because an omission is not a disagreement. Both Micah and Isaiah essentially say the same thing. I don’t see a problem. So too with the baptism of Jesus and the Jarius account; you would expect slightly different accounts from two different eyewitnesses. If anything it shows that the bible wasn’t carefully contrived to make it look acutely synchronous. The point is was Jesus baptized and was Jarius daughter raised from the dead?

      My reply:
      The discerning readers will be able to notice that throughout our exchange you have mostly thrown out hot air without substance. Making a statement and refuting a position are two distinct things. You state, yet you do not refute. Simple saying that it is unwarranted(oooh, such a nice word!) without illustrating why it is so does not prove or disprove anything. Simply saying Micah(though it’s MALACHI) and Isaiah essentially say the same thing without showing how it is so does not prove or disprove anything. It is your problem that you can’t see the problem. Any average reader without having to be a Biblical expert can detect the textual anomalies found throughout the New Testament. One only needs to do an honest and close parallel examination of a story related by the different anonymous authors to notice the resultant changes and their the implications. You said that, “you would expect slightly different accounts from two different eyewitnesses.”. First of all, I have already proven that the eyewitnesses are unidentified, anonymous and unknown which you have time and again failed to refute. Secondly, recounting an account differently due to memory lapse or accident are very different from recounting an account differently blatantly by changing certain information to propound certain ideologies. The latter is clearly the modus operandi of the anonymous authors of the gospels. I have illustrated the theological implications that the change in the pronoun has on the story of the baptism in Mark and Matthew which lends credance to the overwhelming consensus that each anonymous author/s had a particular theological motive to preach. Blatantly changing a story to make history in order to forward a theological point is disingenuous and evil especially if it is ascribed to the divine. The stories are starkly different. In Mark the theological motive concerning the ‘son of God’, the messiah is elusive, even secretive from the get-go, but in Matthew the initial perspective is that Jesus was publicly declared a Messiah. There is noway to reconcile the dichotomy between the two motives. What about Mark 1:2 and Matthew 3:3? Well, I have written an entire article on it and have directed you to it. It is evident textually that Mark wrongly cited Isaiah and later scribes saw that it was such a mistake that they took upon themselves to change ‘Isaias’ to ‘prophetes’(prophets) hence removing the error. It is probable that Matthew relying on Mark as a common source with Luke omitted the the mistake to save face. What about the story of Jairus? Well, this is going to take quite a bit of space to explain. I will break it down sequentially for you so that you will be able to see it clearly.
      First ‘historical’ account of Jesus and Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5:
      1. Jairus goes to Jesus and begs him to heal his daughter daughter who is STILL ALIVE, but “at the point of death”(still alive).
      Comments: This means that when Jairus initially petitions Jesus he THINKS that his daughter is still alive and so he asks Jesus to go to her so that she may be “healed and live”.

      2. Jesus goes with Jairus to see his dying daughter. On the way a woman with hemorrhages touches Jesus cloak with hopes of being healed. According to the story she is healed.

      3. After the healing as Jesus is speaking to the healed woman some people from Jairus’ house comes and informs both Jesus and Jairus that,” Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?”.
      Comments: What this means is that the people thought that Jairus went to Jesus to ask him to heal the daughter from sickness and not to revive her from death, hence their remark, “Why trouble the teacher any further?”. Secondly, knowledge of the daughter’s death only arrives to both Jesus and Jairus AFTER the healing of the woman with issues which necessarily implies that all the while they thought they were approaching a DYING girl and NOT a DEAD girl. Thus it is necessarily implied that Jesus according to the narrative appears to have little knowledge of the daughter’s actual state of being which proves unpalatable for the anonymous author of Matthew as we shall see.

      4. Jesus reaches the house with Jairus and revives the daughter who died.

      Second ‘historical’ account of Jairus’ daughter in Matthew 9:
      1. Jairus goes to Jesus and begs him to RESURRECT his daughter because she “has died”.
      Comments: In Mark we see that the initial petition is to heal the daughter and not revive her from death. We also saw that knowledge of her death comes later after the incident with the woman with hemorrages.

      2. Jesus goes with Jairus to see his dead daughter and perhaps bring her back to life. On the way to the house they encounter the woman with hemorrages.

      3. Jesus arrives at the house with Jairus to revive the dead daughter.
      Comments: So we see that knowledge of the death is modified in this narrative in Matthew. Instead of the knowledge coming after incident number 2 it is transported to incident number 1. The people who inform Jesus and Jairus in Mark in incident 3 disappears and the two immediately arrive at the scene, hence eliminating Jesus’ frailty in knowledge and raising the Christological image.

      Conluding remarks: We see that the author of Matthew saw the undesirability of suggesting that Jesus did not know that the daughter was already dead and was expecting to see a dying girl just like the ordinary human being, the father and was only informed later by other ordinary unknown human beings. He thus sought and did change the narrative so as to increase the Christological value in the story. The modification/alteration/amendment is clearly theological in nature.

      The above are but a few out of numerous examples that a careful reader of the New Testament can detect and discuss. You can continue jumping on the denial band wagon, but until and unless you remove the necessary theological implication behind the modification you have absolutely no case to bear.

      You said:
      “Is there any evidence in history that the crucifixion did not occur apart from the vision of a prophet in a cave some 600 years later? Where are the glorious anti-bible manuscripts proclaiming that Christ was wonderfully saved from crucifixion by a slight of Gods hand? It is an Islamic fabrication.”

      My reply:
      The onus is on the affirmative. Surely you realise this? I have clearly shown that there are very good reasons to believe that the contradictory crucifixion sketches are unreliable and should as such be rejected in my article that I directed you to and I will post it again here one more time http://unveilingchristianity.w.....ucifixion/

      You said:
      That is totally against everything written in the NT. You simply do not believe the NT. The testimony of Peter, Paul, Jesus and John you refute!?!?
      1 Peter 2:24, Ephesians 1:7, Revelation 5:9, Matthew 28:28 and more! Are you really going to bet your soul that the bible is a lie?

      My answer:
      First of all, God does not like human beings to gamble. That is why Muslims don’t place bets, but Christians erect the mother of all gambling havens in Las Vegas. I do not have to put my soul on the line over a speculation that the Bible is a lie. We do know that the Bibles(yes, the Bibles with an ‘s’ because there are numerous Bibles out there http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-inspired/ | http://unveilingchristianity.w.....ome-to-be/) is filled with errors, mistakes (http://unveilingchristianity.w.....y-of-luke/) and even lies e.g. 1 John 5:7, Matthew 9 and Mark 5, Mark 16, pericope adulterae, 1 Timothy 6:16(with the reading, theos). You mentioned the testimony of Peter and you cited 1 Peter 2:24. Numerous scholars debunk the traditional myth that Peter wrote either 1 or 2 Peter. Cambridge scholar Richard Heard says:
      “The attribution to Peter has been widely challenged in modern times on a number of grounds. We know that at least three writings were in circulation in the second century which were falsely attributed to Peter, the epistle which is included in the New Testament as the Second Epistle of Peter, an Apocalypse of Peter, and a Gospel of Peter. Some features of this epistle too have led critics to regard it as also being a forgery, dating from the end of the first century or the very beginning of the second century.

      The epistle is written in fluent and idiomatic Greek, much better than that of Paul, and the Biblical quotations show an intimate knowledge of the Septuagint; this is hard to understand if the epistle is really the work of an Aramaic speaking and illiterate fisherman (Mt. 26:73, Acts 4:13). There are numerous echoes of both the language and ideas of the Pauline epistles, notably of Romans, and some critics have interpreted the general theological tone of the epistle as reflecting a ‘central’ churchmanship more compatible with a post-apostolic stage of development, when Paul’s epistles were more widely known, than with an earlier period. The references to persecution, especially the possibility of suffering ‘as a Christian’ (4:16), are sometimes taken to imply a date in the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) whose letters to Pliny (A.D. 112) furnish the first certain evidence that Christianity was regarded as of itself a crime against the state. It has been suggested, in pursuance of these arguments, that the main part of the epistle (1:3-4:11) consists of a sermon to newly-baptised converts; this has been incorporated in a letter written to meet a crisis of persecution by a Christian who introduced Peter’s name in an endeavour to give his words of exhortation an official and apostolic authority.” (http://www.religion-online.org.....#038;C=561)

      Dr. Eric Eve, Tutor and Fellow in Theology at Harris Manchester College, Oxford says:
      “Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew.” (Eve, E.(2007). 1 Peter. In Barton, J & Muddiman, J(Eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary, (pp. 1263). New York: Oxford University Press.)

      Some have tried to save the Petrine designation by claiming that Peter hired Silvanus. This is refuted by Dr. Eve in the very next paragraph after the above. Others including W.G. Kummel in his ‘Introduction to the New Testament’, Udo Schnelle in ‘The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings’, John Elliot in ‘The Anchor Bible Dictionary’ etc. have negated the traditional Petrine designation. I think Paul was delusional so there’s no use citing him since he wasn’t even there during the alleged happenings. Matthew 28:28? Have you just invented a new verse? It’s so easy to mint the words of God in Christianity, isn’t it? You do realise Matthew ends with Matthew 28:20 right? Perhaps you meant 28:19? If so then please refer to my article on it here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....thew-2819/.

      You said:
      Regarding Biblical accuracy:
      Yes, most manuscripts go back to within 300 years of the originals yet there are some to within 150 years. Compare this with the works of other documents from antiquity such as Plato, Aristotle and others who have a distance of closer to a thousand years or more from the originals with far fewer manuscripts. Who ever complains about this? There are over 20,000 manuscripts of the new testament. The problem with the NT is not in its reliability but rather its palatability.

      My answer:
      Only 53 out of the 5686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are dated to before 400 CE. That’s ONLY 0.9321139641224059% out of 100! You are absolutely wrong to claim that most of the manuscripts go back to within 300 years of the so called originals. You claim that some are found within the first 150 years which is also wrong! The only material dated to the first 125 to 150 years of the common era is p52. This is an immaterial textual witness and it’s not even a manuscript. It’s a badly prevered piece of fragment no bigger than your credit card. Please refer to my article on this here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....testament/. It’s quite evident you’re not very familiar with textual criticism when you simply regurgitate apologetic claims. How do you know that the originals and not the corrupted material that was copied and handed down and so that most of the manuscripts today are based on a corrupted source rather than the original? This is exactly the question that Ehrman raises in his ‘Misquoting Jesus’. The problem is that the oldest fragments and extant manuscripts that you have are copies of copies of copies of copies ad nauseam. There is no certain way that you can know that the copies could be traced back to the actual originals and not corrupted ones. You compare the vast number of manuscripts for the NT to that of Plato and Aristotle. This is easily explained by virtue of the popularity of one over the other. None of the ancient writers enjoyed as much popularity as garnered by the movement later known as Christianity. It is thus natural that the texts that form the bedrock of the faith is copied down time and again. This however, does not mean that it is well preserved. In fact, to compare the meticulous preservation or lack thereof of Greek ancient writings to that of the New Testament is folly. There was hardly any vested interest to corrupt or amend the texts of ‘The Republic’, ‘The Nachomachean’ or ‘The Illiad’ for the simple reason that they had little influence over the political and theological realities of the times compared to the Christianities that emerged in the first and more so in the second century CE with each group or individual eager to propel their own perspectives and theological leanings. G.A. Wells rightly says:
      “I have noted elsewhere that, if there had been a Tacitus club in every European town for 1,000 or more years with as much influence as the local Christian clergy, sections of the Annals would not have been lost. And if, instead of copying orthodox literature repeatedly, Christian scribes had copied works regarded as heretical or even downright hostile to Christianity, we should have a much clearer picture of what underlay the church’s struggle against opposing forces.”
      Hence, the abundance in material is reflective of the popularity garnered by the Christianities that emerged in the first century onwards. However, as I have noted these copies themselves were prone to errors both intentional and otherwise. In fact, Origen in the third century observes this textual corruption phenomenon:
      “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”(Cited in ‘Misquoting Jesus’, by Bart Ehrman, pp. 52)

      Origen also records an observer from the outside, Celcus who says:
      “Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Against Celcus 2.27)” (Ibid.)

      You do realise that no two of the thousands of manuscripts that you have are alike right? In fact, to put it in its correct perspective, there are “are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”(Ibid. pp.10)

      Think of it like this. If it were possible to make textual amendments in the third century when there were already highly evolved and sophisticated and sizable literate Christian communities with such intellectuals as Origen, Tertullian and others what is the likelihood of changes and amendments taking place in the first century when the Christianities were still fledgling communities with little to no literacy? Was it not easier to fudge things and even make things up undetected? Who would be the wiser when you are with the pen and the rest are dumb? Corruption even in the time of the intellectual Christians persisted which means that it must have been even more common place in the earliest epochs. The problem is compounded further by the fact that we don’t know who these authors were and what affiliations they had.

      You said:
      A: That’s right. Adam and Eve were not short of Gods glory before the fall. They were made in his image and walked with God face to face. They were faultless and holy until the serpent came and beguiled them.

      My answer:
      This image must have been that of a glorified ape unfamiliar with the concept of right and wrong. This is the Genesis story is it not? Adam and Even only realised they were naked once they ate from the tree of knowledge. Prior to that they had no sense of good and evil. You claim that this is the glorified state from whence they came akin to that of God’s glorified position. The implication of this similitude is that God was a simpleton like Adam and Eve. Why do you enjoy digging a deeper grave than what you already have? Can Adam and Eve or any man stand in front of God and claim that he is glorified like God? It was you who adamantly denied this in no uncertain terms as you said, “A: If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect. In effect you are saying you are just as glorious as God! I think you have said an indefensible statement!” No human being, not even the first ones can hold a candle to God and say, “I am with glory just like you.” God is unlike anything as 2 Samuel 7:22 says,“You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You”. You have kicked the bucket because you realised that my argument about the state of being prior to the fall is irrefutable so you had to concede but to save face you try to allege that they were just as glorified as god before the fall and by doing so you have unbeknownst devalued your god to that of an ignoramus like the first human beings.

      You said:
      “A: It must mean to know ‘all things’ in a spiritual context. Obviously they will not know how many atoms the planet Jupiter is composed of. One needs to be contextual,”

      My answer:
      What spiritual context? It is quite clear that you are restricting the word ‘all’ rather than apply it to absolutely everything and anything like you were falsely doing with some passages regarding doing good. Scripturally I have proven that men can do good and are described as such for their righteous deeds. You don’t have a leg to stand upon.

      As usual, try harder.

  68. Ibn Anwar says:

    The Bull said:
    Hi Kalu

    Thanks for you response. I totally relate to you and your sensitivity is admirable. I would be horrified at the thought of my own faith being in error and so this business is really quite an emotional one for all of us. It takes real guts to critically examine those things that are at the foundation of our lives and try to make sense of it all. The good thing is that God is here to help us.

    In response to your entry I would begin by saying that salvation is of the Jews. This in itself is a very disturbing and offensive notion for Islam because of the rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael and even Jacob and Esau. This rivalry continues to this very day!
    God established his covenant with Isaac not Ishmael (Genesis 17:19). Now some of the children of Ishmael and Esau have gone back to Isaac and Jacob over the years and have found salvation.

    Ishmael cannot establish his own system to reach God apart from Isaac/Israel. He must go back to Israel! What Islam purports is that another system was set up by Ishmael and Abraham to reach God through the Kaaba concurrently with Israel. This is simply not true. It is impossible and there is absolutely no evidence of it. There is no record of it, no dealings of another people with God, no deliverance from Egypt, no Mt. Sinai, temple or priestly class, Ark of the Covenant, holy of holies e.t.c. No glory, no record, no nothing.

    Now what you see with Israel is a pure and holy system that periodically was defiled by bad kings and idolatry and then corrected. What you have with Islam is outright paganism outside of Gods covenant to begin with. This paganism and false idol worship was supposedly sanctified and corrected by Mohammad after having been corrupted, however, it was never holy in the first place and is outside of Gods covenant. Mohammed kept many of the pagan practices. Islam is like Roman Catholicism that kept the pagan practices and repackaged it so that there was something of familiarity for the people. It also stopped the people from rejecting the ‘new’ religion.

    Christmas day and other practices appear to have been affected by paganism ,however, they play little or no importance to the faith itself which cannot be said of Islam and its practices, which are at its very core. Halloween? It’s the first I’ve head of it being a Christian festival. It’s rooted in devilry!

    My reply:
    The story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine. A careful examination of the sequence of events and the words used will show that whoever handled the texts modified it to undermine Ishmael and promote Isaac and his progeny. Jeremiah 8:8 testifies that the ‘sofrim’ or scribes(the first place they are mentioned in the Bible/s) corrupted God’s word with their pen. In Genesis 15:2-3 Abram beseeches God and complains that Eliezer will become the heir to his house rather than his own offspring saying, “Behold you have not given me offspring.” Immediately, he is assured in verse four that Eliezer will not be his heir, but rather his own son shall be his heir. The angel then revealed a sign that will indicate that this son is the answer to Abram’s prayer in verse five whereby it is promised that through Ishmael his descendants will be countless like the stars. In the next chapter we come to know that Hagar becomes the legitimate wife of Abram and not much later she conceives! Note that this follows immediately after the promise of an heir by God through the angel. In Gen. 16:11 it says that the angel himself descends to Hagar and says, “Behold you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael.” Just before this the angel informs her in verse ten that her line of progeny will be so many in multitude that they can’t be numbered. This sign of the promised heir(first in chapter 15) is repeated three times in Ishmael’s case(Gen. 16:10, 17:6 and 17:20). Is it mere coincidence that the angel only appears to Hagar and never to Sarah? Is it mere coincidence that the firstborn is named by God Himself as Ishmael which incidentally means GOD HEARD? Heard what? Follow the sequence of events from Genesis 15 right into 16 and you will be able to see that the promise was fulfilled with the conception of Ishmael through Hagar. This point is solidified further by virtue of the fact that Abraham stopped asking God to send him an heir after Ishmael’s conception. The manipulation takes place after this where Isaac is mysteriously made into the heir and is described as “the only son” which is anachronistic in view of the fact that Ishmael was also his son and had been around for several years prior to Isaac’s conception. The expression “thy only son” introduced later into the narrative gives away the lie that crept into it at the hands of the scribes. There is no rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael. Both were accepted by God and both were blessed. Ishmael was received into the covenant as he bore its sign i.e. the circumcision. He was not excluded from it. No doubt that the prophets of God have almost all descended from Isaac’s line, but notice that God promises Ishmael a great nation. When did this come about? This came about in the person of Muhammad s.a.w. who is a direct descendant of the monotheist Ishmael. The blessing that Isaac’s line had was taken away from them due to their incessant wrongdoing and unrighteousness(Deuteronomy 31:26-29) turning God away from them. Jesus as a matter of fact rebuked them and said, “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruit.”(Matthew 21:43). There are several important things to take into consideration here. The kingdom of God is to be taken away from them(Isaac’s children) and given to another NATION(ethnei). You cannot say that this refers to the gentile believers of Christianity since the word is very specific namely, ethnei from which you get the word ethnic. The word refers to a particular race or ethnicity which can only mean the Arabs when all the facts are collated. It also mentions the idea of ‘producing fruits’ which so happens to be synonymous with the expression used in the promise for Ishmael i.e. ‘to bear fruit’ or ‘parah’ in Hebrew. Who were the kings in Ishmael’s line that were promised to him by God in Genesis 17:6? They are the Arab kings/rulers that came to power with the arrival of Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Prior to Muhammad s.a.w. and the caliphs of Islam the Arabs were for all intents and purposes a non-entity. It was Islam that propelled them to heights of greatness. Thus the Jewish Rabbinical authorities recognise this and says:
    “We see from the prophecy in this verse that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th century C.E.]…. Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until finally the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world.” (Rabbi Nosson Scherman. The Chumash(1998). Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd. p. 76)

    What about Islam’s origins? You have repeated the same claims that I have already refuted and you have not countered it with any rebuttals whatsoever! Qui tacit consentit…silence is a sign of approval. We know that Ishmael was a monotheist like his father Abraham. He never defiled his father’s religion. It was only later that his progeny like those of Isaac’s fell into blasphemy and paganism. Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. simply brought them back to the correct path that was thread upon by their forefathers, Abraham and Ishmael. Shall I start listing down all the things that have come into Christianity? For starters let’s mention the hypostatic union attributed to Jesus hundreds of years after him. Do you know that this is a pagan Hellenistic philosophy? Let’s play your game. God is mentioned as ‘theos’ in the New testament. You do realise that the word comes from the pagan Greeks and Romans who described their God for centuries as ‘theos’ right? Jesus is described as ‘son of god’..you do realise that the Roman emperors were described as ‘sons of God’ and that they too were gods/demigods? You point one finger at us, four are pointing back at you The BULL. What about YHWH? Let’s reproduce a part of my refutation to you on this:
    In fact, Biblical narrative shows that YHWH or Yahweh as it has now come to be pronounced was worshipped as a pagan idol.
    “An Israelite Bronze Bull, dating from the period of the Judges (c. 1200 B.C.E.). Found on a “high place” or cultic site in the hills of Samaria, this figurine (7 inches long, 5 inches high), symbolizing power and fertility, apparently was associated with the worship of Yahweh as well as Baal (cf. Judg. 6:25)

    It is likely, however, that the story of Exodus 32 rests upon a tradition much older than Jeroboam I and indicates that some ancient circles believed that the bull could legitimately be used to symbolize the supremacy of Yahweh.” (Bernhard W. Anderson (1988). The Living World of the Old Testament. Harlow, England: Longman Group UK Limited. pp. 104)

    In a footnote to the above quotation Anderson mentions the following:
    “See Frank M. Cross, “Yahweh and El” [112], 73-75, who argues that in northern circles the Bull was a symbol of the high god ‘El, with whom Yahweh was identified…”

    He continues on page 105 saying, “The ensuing “feast to Yahweh” was in good Canaanite style, with sacrifices, eating and drinking, dancing, and perhaps sexual orgies (verses 5-6).”
    Who is Bernhard Anderson? He was an ordained Methodist pastor and a professor at princeton Theological seminary and several other noted higher learning institutes. Shall we conclude that Yahweh is a pagan God? Following your line of inquiry and argument we should.

    I would suggest you not to repeat points that have already been refuted without any counter-rebuttals offered. As always, try harder.

  69. mrkill says:

    it is obvious to textual critics that matthew STEALS from marks account and luke throws away matthews “eyewitness” testimony AND RETAINS marks version of it.

    mark says the women go to the tomb and on there way they ask “who is gonna role away the stone”

    they then enter a tomb and see a man

    matthew cleary has a problem with this account. he OMITS the question “who is gonna role away the stone” because the women will SEE the ANGEL role away the stone . “WHEN THEY CAME TO THE TOMB ‘ BEHOLD A GLOWING ANGEL CAME DOWN AND STRUCK DOWN THE GUARDS AND THEN REPLIED TO THE WOMEN …’DON’T BE AFRAID…’ ”
    So why did mark’s man IN the TOMB morph in to a flying angel ? because matthew new that an angel has MORE status /priority than a mere man in a tomb . note in matthews version the angel says, “COME c the place where he lay…” the angel is clearly telling them to follow him in the tomb. in john’s account the all the woman has to do is stoop down and she is able to c the location of the body . so if the location of where the body was placed could be seen from outside of the tomb then does it make sense that the angel in matthew says to them IN the tomb ‘come c the place where he lay’? he obviously is asking them because they are and him are a distance away from the tomb. luke totally throw matthews version in the dustbin and retains the marks version . this is not a case of eyewitnesses differing, this is a case of deliberate retelling of a primitive version of the story. if mark knew that the women crashed into jesus after leaving the tomb (matthew says ,…behold jesus met them…” the ‘behold’ is used to INTRODUCE NEW event or idea)why did mark DECEIVE his readers into thinking that they SAID nothing to anyone? They did speak, they crashed into the man himself and the man was jeesus. in johns version even after speaking to angels, the mary DOES NOT learn about jesus’ ressurection , even after she converses with the gardner who is jesus in disguise, she does not learn that it is jesus.she is unable to recognise him. it is only after he speaks. she things jesus took his own body and placed it somewhere lol .this is not a case of eyewitnesses receiving differt accounts , it is absolutely foolish to think eyewitness would bring inconsistencies like the gospel accounts, but the way to counter this is reading each account by itself and noting that inconsistency disappear when we all agree that the narrators did not want to view thier accounts in light of the others.

    literary dependance
    not dependance on ‘eyewitnesses’

  70. mrkill says:

    here is more evidence:

    Luke had a problem with galilee
    Luke intends to convey that the Church initially began in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:12-14). But Mark implies Jesus wanted the disciples to go home to Galilee, and Matthew outright states Jesus saw them in Galilee. How does Luke get them back to Jerusalem?
    Simple–he never has them go to Galilee in the first place. Notice how Luke modifies the story, beginning with what the Angel at the tomb says
    Here’s the odd bit. What is the import of Jesus making such a statement in Galilee? In fact, Luke records Jesus stating it in Galilee (Luke 9:22) but also records Jesus stating this in either Samaria or Judea! (Luke 18:33) (It is unclear whether Jesus had reached Judea yet, but he was coming from Samaria.)

    The ONLY reason Luke feels the need to include the word “Galilee” (since the place the statement was made is irrelevant) is to explain away the problem people associated the angel stating something about Galilee at the tomb.

    Now the Luke has removed the pesky problem regarding “Go to Galilee” found in both Mark and Matthew, we continue with Luke’s story. Luke has the women go tell the Disciples (but includes nothing about Jesus appearing to the women because that would entail having to address the Galilean problem again. Remember, in Matthew the women were told by Jesus, “Get the boys up to Galilee.”).

  71. The Bull says:

    You said: ‘Jeremiah 8:8 testifies that the ‘sofrim’ or scribes(the first place they are mentioned in the Bible/s) corrupted God’s word with their pen.’

    Answer:
    Jeremiah 8:8 (KJV) :“How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes [is] in vain.”

    The verse is not saying that scripture is in error. It is a lament expressing that the law has not been heeded to by Israel. The law has not has its desired effect; it has been in vain because it has not been heeded to by the people. God after all could not make the law in error could he? I don’t think so.

    Psalm 19:7 reminds us that ‘the law of the Lord is perfect’. Jesus himself confirmed the accuracy of the O.T. (Matthew 5:18, John 10:35).

    Another point to consider is that if you conclusion is correct then nothing in the bible can be trusted, which also puts your faith in a crisis. You said : “The story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine.”, yet you use it to support your case with Ishmael?!?

    God told Abraham that Ishmael would also become a great nation for the reason that he was his seed (21:13), but that it was in Isaac that his seed would be called (21:12). (I suppose chapter 21 is not genuine either!)

    You Said (and Jesus): “The kingdom of God is to be taken away from them(Isaac’s children) and given to another NATION(ethnei).
    But wait a minute? Didn’t Ishmael already have the kingdom of God established through the Kaaba?

    You Said: ‘In fact, Biblical narrative shows that YHWH or Yahweh as it has now come to be pronounced was worshipped as a pagan idol.’
    Yes, and the bible didn’t condone it! In contrast, the pagan practices in Islam are condoned!

    You say Ishmael was chosen by God in covenant yet where is the glory? The proof is in the signs and wonders shown to Isaacs line through Israel. God proved to the world that the God if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the real God (and that the record is true) through the history of GLORY (e.g. Ex. 9:16). This is his name forever, and this is his MEMORIAL to all generations! (Exodus 3:15). In sharp contrast, Ishmael did not have a covenant with God and the evidence is that nothing was recorded or happened. I repeat WHERE IS THE GLORY?

    Theos is the generic word for God in Greek…big deal! It is not the name of a particular deity like Allah. Again, why do muslims persist in using Allah in other translation of the koran and not the generic word for God for that culture?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Still at it The Bull? lol…very well. Let’s continue.

      You sad:
      Jeremiah 8:8 (KJV) :“How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes [is] in vain.”

      The verse is not saying that scripture is in error. It is a lament expressing that the law has not been heeded to by Israel. The law has not has its desired effect; it has been in vain because it has not been heeded to by the people. God after all could not make the law in error could he? I don’t think so.

      My reply:
      Let’s have a look at the Hebrew. It reads:
      אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ, וְתוֹרַת יְהוָה אִתָּנוּ; אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים

      The following translations are perhaps closest to the Hebrew:
      “How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.” (Darby Bible Translation)

      “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.”(New American Standard Bible)

      ” `How can you say, “We are wise because we have the law(Torah) of the Lord,” when your teachers have twisted it so badly? ” (New Living Translation, Jeremiah 8:8 )

      “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. “ ( Revised Standard Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )

      Who were the ‘sofrim’ or scribes? They were the ones that were charged with the responsibility of preserving the texts of scripture.
      “Scribe in the Old Testament. The Heb. root idea in the word scribe is that of “to count, to set in order, to wrie”.
      The earliest references to the term are found in connection with the courts of David and Solomon, where the scribes’ primary responsibilities were to write down and preserve records (2 Sam 8:17, 20:25; 1 Kgs 4:3).
      …The prophet Jeremiah depended on his faithful scribe, Baruch, to record his messages(Jer 36:4,6,27,28,32)…Jeremiah accused them of perpetrating lies (Jer. 8:8)
      Scribal duties extended beyond those of merely recording and preserving messages. ”
      (Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. p. 801-802)

      How can God’s book be made into a lie if not by corruption? Is the message of Jesus a lie? Surely, no Christian will say that. But, Jimmy Swaggart had sex with prostitutes. That went against the teachings of Jesus right? Did the actions of Swaggart render the teachings of Jesus a lie? According to the evangelist’s logic like Jochen Katz the answer is yes. Does it make sense? The truth is the truth, if someone does otherwise in his action the truth remains the truth. 2+2=4. Even if a billion people said 2+2=10 the truth of 2+2=4 remains the truth. It has not been turned into a lie.

      There are four key terms in the verse that need to be paid attention to namely,
      1) Torah
      2) Sheker
      3) Et
      4) Sofrim

      The Torah is in reference to the 5 books attributed to Moses. Sheker literally means a sham or a lie or something false. Et means pen and sofrim is the plural for scribes.

      Now, as I have mentioned earlier the word “scribe” or “sofr” in Hebrew means “to write”. This word in the verse is amplified by the mention of “et”. Why does it say et when the word scribe itself is already understood as someone who writes? The reason is because it is telling you not to make the mistake which Katz, the Bull and other evangelists are making. Make no mistake about it. It is not talking about some weird misrepentation of the Torah by the false teachings of the scribes, but rather the scribes who WRITE with the PEN have made the Torah into sheker(a lie). If it is really trying to convey the idea of false teachings from the scribes’ preaching as per the claim proposed by Katz in his article on this then surely it would have used “peh” which means mouth(and speech) in Hebrew or “lashan” which means tongue. What does a pen represent? A pen represents WRITNG rather than speech. The verse does not support Katz’or the Bull’s understanding at all. The fact of the matter is that the Torah was changed into a lie by the pen of the scribes i.e. it has been corrupted.

      You said:
      Psalm 19:7 reminds us that ‘the law of the Lord is perfect’.

      Yes, I have no problem agreeing with the above since it could very well be referring to the original Torah that was given to Moses. It could also be referring to ordinances of God in general and not exactly the five books attributed to Moses. Until and unless you can prove that verse actually refers to the first five books of the Old Testament you have absolutely no case here. You presume the unity of the OT canon. I do not and neither do most scholars today.

      You said:
      Jesus himself confirmed the accuracy of the O.T. (Matthew 5:18, John 10:35).

      My reply:
      This tactic used by Christian missionaries to prove the authenticity of the Old Testament in claiming that it is fully confirmed by Jesus by citing passages here and there from the NT has been discussed by the Protestant scholar Paley in his book published in 1850 in chapter three. Alas, the discussion is quite long as such it is not feasible for me to start transcribing them here. It is sufficient to mention here that he discusses that the claims such as the one made by The Bull and Jochen Katz by citing Matthew 23, Matthew 5 etc. does not bear much weight. He also cites 1 James 5:11 and 2 Timothy 3:8.

      As a matter of fact, Jesus was very critical of this particular group of people called the scribes.

      In Matthew chapter 23 alone Jesus curses the scribes saying “Woe be to you” no less than six times and called them hypocrites eight times over which is a record in a single chapter in the whole Bible!

      Are the scribes, the ones responsible for the so called preservation of the Old Testament trustworthy? How can they be trusted when they were the ones who plotted to kill Jesus and treated him in such vile ways?

      “they(the scribes and pharisees) spat in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.”

      “And they that had laid hold on Jesus Christ led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Now the chief priests, and the elders and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” (Matthew 26:57)

      Like in Jeremiah 8:8, here we also see an example of the scribes lying or making false witness. However, in Jeremiah 8:8 they lied upon the Torah and in the above they lied upon Jesus. Are they to be trusted?

      To list every single instance of Jesus reproaching the scribes here would be a most tedious task and I do not have the luxury of time nor strength to do that. It is sufficient to say that Jesus condemned the scribes in more than 60 verses! In Matthew chapter 23 quoted earlier, the heading reads, “Jesus Denounces the Scribes n the Pharisees”. You may refer to Mark 12:38 to 40, Luke 20:45-47 etc. for more on Jesus against the scribes.

      You said:
      Another point to consider is that if you conclusion is correct then nothing in the bible can be trusted, which also puts your faith in a crisis. You said : “The story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine.”, yet you use it to support your case with Ishmael?!?

      My reply:
      How exactly do my conclusions render the entire Bible(s) false? I think I have made my case as plain as the day. Much of the material in the Bible(s) are made up and modified to suit certain perspectives. I have proven this and you have yet to provide a single cogent rebuttal to the arguments that I have put forward. I have not suggested that the whole Bible is useless and completely filled with lies and deceit. When I said that the story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine I did not mean that everything in it is false. What I meant contextually was that certain elements found in it are false and detectable by the critical reader. Readers will notice that you have failed again to reply to my elaboration and points!

      You said:
      You Said (and Jesus): “The kingdom of God is to be taken away from them(Isaac’s children) and given to another NATION(ethnei).
      But wait a minute? Didn’t Ishmael already have the kingdom of God established through the Kaaba?

      My reply:
      You are one amusing fellow. Neither Ishmael nor his immediate descendants we made kings of Arabia and established a “great nation” with multitudes in strength akin to the stars in heaven. Let’s reproduce my initial response to remind the readers that The Bull is a funny person with little ammunition left to defend his flimsy position:
      The story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine. A careful examination of the sequence of events and the words used will show that whoever handled the texts modified it to undermine Ishmael and promote Isaac and his progeny. Jeremiah 8:8 testifies that the ‘sofrim’ or scribes(the first place they are mentioned in the Bible/s) corrupted God’s word with their pen. In Genesis 15:2-3 Abram beseeches God and complains that Eliezer will become the heir to his house rather than his own offspring saying, “Behold you have not given me offspring.” Immediately, he is assured in verse four that Eliezer will not be his heir, but rather his own son shall be his heir. The angel then revealed a sign that will indicate that this son is the answer to Abram’s prayer in verse five whereby it is promised that through Ishmael his descendants will be countless like the stars. In the next chapter we come to know that Hagar becomes the legitimate wife of Abram and not much later she conceives! Note that this follows immediately after the promise of an heir by God through the angel. In Gen. 16:11 it says that the angel himself descends to Hagar and says, “Behold you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael.” Just before this the angel informs her in verse ten that her line of progeny will be so many in multitude that they can’t be numbered. This sign of the promised heir(first in chapter 15) is repeated three times in Ishmael’s case(Gen. 16:10, 17:6 and 17:20). Is it mere coincidence that the angel only appears to Hagar and never to Sarah? Is it mere coincidence that the firstborn is named by God Himself as Ishmael which incidentally means GOD HEARD? Heard what? Follow the sequence of events from Genesis 15 right into 16 and you will be able to see that the promise was fulfilled with the conception of Ishmael through Hagar. This point is solidified further by virtue of the fact that Abraham stopped asking God to send him an heir after Ishmael’s conception. The manipulation takes place after this where Isaac is mysteriously made into the heir and is described as “the only son” which is anachronistic in view of the fact that Ishmael was also his son and had been around for several years prior to Isaac’s conception. The expression “thy only son” introduced later into the narrative gives away the lie that crept into it at the hands of the scribes. There is no rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael. Both were accepted by God and both were blessed. Ishmael was received into the covenant as he bore its sign i.e. the circumcision. He was not excluded from it. No doubt that the prophets of God have almost all descended from Isaac’s line, but notice that God promises Ishmael a great nation. When did this come about? This came about in the person of Muhammad s.a.w. who is a direct descendant of the monotheist Ishmael. The blessing that Isaac’s line had was taken away from them due to their incessant wrongdoing and unrighteousness(Deuteronomy 31:26-29) turning God away from them. Jesus as a matter of fact rebuked them and said, “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruit.”(Matthew 21:43). There are several important things to take into consideration here. The kingdom of God is to be taken away from them(Isaac’s children) and given to another NATION(ethnei). You cannot say that this refers to the gentile believers of Christianity since the word is very specific namely, ethnei from which you get the word ethnic. The word refers to a particular race or ethnicity which can only mean the Arabs when all the facts are collated. It also mentions the idea of ‘producing fruits’ which so happens to be synonymous with the expression used in the promise for Ishmael i.e. ‘to bear fruit’ or ‘parah’ in Hebrew. Who were the kings in Ishmael’s line that were promised to him by God in Genesis 17:6? They are the Arab kings/rulers that came to power with the arrival of Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Prior to Muhammad s.a.w. and the caliphs of Islam the Arabs were for all intents and purposes a non-entity. It was Islam that propelled them to heights of greatness. Thus the Jewish Rabbinical authorities recognise this and says:
      “We see from the prophecy in this verse that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th century C.E.]…. Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until finally the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world.” (Rabbi Nosson Scherman. The Chumash(1998). Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd. p. 76)

      You said:
      You Said: ‘In fact, Biblical narrative shows that YHWH or Yahweh as it has now come to be pronounced was worshipped as a pagan idol.’
      Yes, and the bible didn’t condone it! In contrast, the pagan practices in Islam are condoned!

      Are you sure? You do realise that the reference that I made makes mention of the fact that pagans had already been worshipping YHWH prior to Moses? lol The Tanakh stole YHWH from pagans and reinvented him for themselves. Speaking of pagan sacrifices, you do realise that blood sacrifices to some deity to appease or curry favour with him is an ancient pagan practice that predates the Torah? Jeremiah 7:22 says, “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Shall we say this pagan practice has become enshrined in both Judaism and Christianity(more so the latter) plagiarised from ancient pagan myths?

      You said:
      You say Ishmael was chosen by God in covenant yet where is the glory? The proof is in the signs and wonders shown to Isaacs line through Israel. God proved to the world that the God if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the real God (and that the record is true) through the history of GLORY (e.g. Ex. 9:16). This is his name forever, and this is his MEMORIAL to all generations! (Exodus 3:15). In sharp contrast, Ishmael did not have a covenant with God and the evidence is that nothing was recorded or happened. I repeat WHERE IS THE GLORY?

      My reply:
      Do you realise that you’re arguing from silence? Once again like a good little evangelist you come with the presumption that the Bible is THE record that everyone should turn to as the ultimate historical criteria. There is a reason why Ishmael is not mentioned much in the annals of the OT/Tanakh. It is clear that the descendants of Isaac were nationalists and wanted their nation to supercede all others. Every other nation are scorned upon and portrayed as barbarian infidels deserving of total decimation e.g. Numbers 31. Allow me to make this point clearer by showing you an example of a story carefully though not perfectly fashioned to blemish and malign an opposing nation:
      “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      (Genesis 9:18-25, KJV)

      Before I proceed further I would like to state for the record that Muslims are utterly shocked and offended that the Bible portrays great messengers of God as low lives like drunkards.

      Coming to the story… Notice how the story says Ham THE FATHER of Canaan. This is rather interesting. Seems like it’s trying to prove or lead to something.

      In summary, Noah became drunk and dropped naked in his tent. Ham, Noah’s second son found him in that state and told his brothers about it. According to many Biblical experts Ham didn’t just tell his brothers about it, he also laughed at his father’s state. This is considered as an offense to Noah and is the reason why Noah made the curse. The two other sons Shem and Japheth were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him without looking. When Noah gained consciousness, he knew what Ham did and started cursing,”And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      Did you catch the joke?

      Noah had 3 sons : Shem, Ham and Japheth.

      Ham had 4 sons(Genesis 10:6) : Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

      When the narration is analysed, a question arises,”Who was responsible for looking at Noah’s nakedness?” The answer is Ham. Christians argue that the action of Ham was a sin, hence the curse. For the sake of argument, we agree. Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No, Canaan an innocent little child was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who’s responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Further more, why was Canaan out of 4 siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness? Can you imagine something like that happening today? I love analogies, so let’s have one:

      James has four children. He committed murder. He is apprehended, brought to court and is found guilty. The judge decided that the punishment is the “injection” i.e. death. However, the injection is given to his youngest son and he in turn is released without cost. Once again, is this justice or madness?

      It is evident that this story has a subliminal message in it made for propaganda. It aims at teaching the Israelites that their fight against the strong Canaanite nation is one that is just since it was ordained that they’re nothing but slaves from the very beginning.

      In addition, how is this strange tale reconciled in light of the following:

      “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

      You said:
      Theos is the generic word for God in Greek…big deal! It is not the name of a particular deity like Allah. Again, why do muslims persist in using Allah in other translation of the koran and not the generic word for God for that culture?

      My reply:
      Theos is a word that was day in and day out used for the pagan deities of ancient Greek and Roman myths. If it were only a matter of borrowing terms and the kind, that’s fine, but is it only that? Let’s have a look at some more parallels between Christian doctrines and pagan myths shall we?
      Jesus in mainstream Christian thought that you cling to is both God and man in a so called hypostasis union. I brought this up before but you have completely and conveniently ignored following your consistent behaviour of simply ignoring points and just wade on aimlessly. The idea of having a man deified is not unique to Christianity. It has its roots in ancient myths believed in cultures and socieities that Christianity grew in. The Biblical scholar L. Michael White writes:
      “Pagans looking at early Christianity were often amused by the stories about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. After all, pagans knew of many such stories in their own tradition. Christians knew them too.” (White, L. M.(2010). Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. New York: HarperCollins. pp.66-67)
      Dr. White then cites Justin Martyr who tries to reason with pagans that Christians’ belief about God and Jesus is not much different from theirs(the pagans’):
      “And if we also say, as we said before, that he[Jesus], in an unusual way compared to an ordinary birth, was born from God as the Logos of God, it should be ordinary to you, since you call Hermes the premonitory Logos that proceeds from God…And if we also present him as being born through a virgin, it should be as ordinary to you as that pertaining to Perseus.” (Justin Martyr Apology 1.21-22, cited in ibid.)

      Believe me when I tell you that you do not want to talk about plagiarising myths for such claims can be forcefully made on Christianity in light of numerous ancient myths.
      Try harder.

  72. The Bull says:

    You said: ‘It is an accepted fact amongst both conservative and liberal scholars that much of the NT material are fudged.’ and ‘How do you know that the originals and not the corrupted material that was copied and handed down and so that most of the manuscripts today are based on a corrupted source rather than the original?’

    The N.T. has a very high fidelity (99.5%). There is negligible variation between the 20+ thousand texts and certainly nothing that affects the overall message. This means the texts have not been ‘fudged’ unless you can find the documents they have been fudged from. It is very unlikely because there is simply no evidence of it and it is logically absurd for this reason: any ‘fudged’ material would have been rejected when compared to the true source already in wide circulation. Also if the original content were untrue then it would have had a wide rejection as eyewitnesses and the general populace refute the new ‘history’. It virtually impossible to invent history. For example how hard would it be to re-write the history books and claim that Germany had won the second world war? This is similar to what you are attempting with your refutation of the crucifixion e.t.c.

    RE: eyewitnesses
    1 John 1:1 “That which…we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes….”
    2 Peter 1:16 “…but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
    Luke a secondary witness had perfect understanding of all things from the very first from the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-3).

    RE: Jarius daughter.
    The synagogue ruler may have said both statements:
    For example (Mark): ‘my daughter is at the point of death…..’
    Then, WHAMO, someone from the crowd gives a sign or verbally whispers to him the girl is dead. Maybe the spirit of God told him?
    Seconds later he pleads with Jesus (Matthew): ‘my daughter has just died…..’.

    You do have a point, I admit, but the miracle was that she was raised from the dead which both accounts agree on. If it was a mistake then I believe it to be a genuine one without conspiracy. If it had been a conspiracy then they could have adjusted the stories to ‘make them fit’ anyway! Remember also that eyewitness see and hear events from a different angle, yet the overall story is the same.

    You said: “You are absolutely wrong to claim that most of the manuscripts go back to within 300 years of the so called originals.
    You are right here. Only some do. My mistake. However my sources tell me that p46, p66 and p67 are within 150 years from the originals.
    Isn’t it fascinating that p52 speaks of Jesus trial before his execution?

    Matt Slick says:
    ‘Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.’
    and
    “If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer…”
    …..because there are far fewer manuscripts for them and they are much, much further from the originals.

    You said: ‘You compare the vast number of manuscripts for the NT to that of Plato and Aristotle. This is easily explained by virtue of the popularity of one over the other. None of the ancient writers enjoyed as much popularity as garnered by the movement later known as Christianity…’
    I would say the popularity of the N.T. over other documents proves its power and truth. It also provides a lot more evidence as the scriptures were multiplied thousands of times without significant variation as mentioned above.

    You said: ‘Can Adam and Eve or any man stand in front of God and claim that he is glorified like God?’ and ‘We do not believe in the Christian myth of falling short of God’s glory’.

    I said: ‘ If you don’t fall short of Gods glory then you can look God in the eye as an equal, and say look at me, there is nothing wrong with me, I am glorious, holy, mighty and perfect.’

    OK. I did make a mistake here. I was trying to make a point that you have fallen short of Gods glory which you don’t believe. In my eagerness I took it a step too far. No one can say they are equal with God or have his glorified state, however, one can still not ‘fall short of his glory’ because they are sinless and made in his image. Adam and Eve were created by God and for that very reason did not fall short of his glory. They were an example of his glory. We however have sinned and do fall short of his glory which not only Paul but the Psalmist and Isaiah testify.

    Adam and Eve were not gorillas. They could speak for starters and knew that eating the fruit was wrong.

    I would suggest that, because you don’t believe you have fallen short of Gods glory, you see no need for redemption/salvation. You actually don’t believe you need it! This is the error of Islam. I pray that you will see your true spiritual state and ask Gods mercy through his son Jesus.

    The bible says ‘all have sinned and fall short of his glory (Rom 3:23)’. In effect you are saying you haven’t sinned! Can’t you see your error.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      The N.T. has a very high fidelity (99.5%). There is negligible variation between the 20+ thousand texts and certainly nothing that affects the overall message. This means the texts have not been ‘fudged’ unless you can find the documents they have been fudged from. It is very unlikely because there is simply no evidence of it and it is logically absurd for this reason: any ‘fudged’ material would have been rejected when compared to the true source already in wide circulation. Also if the original content were untrue then it would have had a wide rejection as eyewitnesses and the general populace refute the new ‘history’. It virtually impossible to invent history. For example how hard would it be to re-write the history books and claim that Germany had won the second world war? This is similar to what you are attempting with your refutation of the crucifixion e.t.c.

      My reply:
      99.5%? I would very much like to see how you arrived at that percentage. Exaplain to me the logical apparatus and methodology used. I highly doubt that you can. It’s amazing how these evangelists can just throw numbers left, right and centre and run with it as if it is God’s truth. Norman Geisler is a favourite amongst apologists. He says that Metzger estimates that the NT is 99.5 percent accurate.(N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 234-235). Geisler repeats this almost verbatim in his ‘Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics’. Geisler(whom you are getting this information from) claims that Bruce Metzger makes this estimates in the latter’s ‘Chapters In The History Of New Testament Textual Criticism’. But anyone familiar with Metzger will immediately come to realisation that such an estimation is absolutely nonexistent in Metzger’s writings! It would appear that you have swallowed the horse The Bull. It would appear that Geisler was spreading bull**** to impress people. I. Moir makes the claim that the NT is 95 percent accurate(K. Elliott & I. Moir(1995). Manuscripts And The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The English Readers. EEdinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark. pp. 8), Ralph Earle agrees with Moir and gives it a 95 percent as well(K. L. Barker (ed.)(1991).The NIV: The Making Of A Contemporary Translation. Colorado Springs: International Bible Society. pp. 58-59) and the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament yields a total of 83.5 percent of certainty in the NT whose editors were Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, Allen Wikgren, Matthew Black, Arthur Vööbus, Carlo Maria Martini, Barbara Aland and John Karavidopoulos(Textual Certainty In The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament”, Novum Testamentum, 2002, Volume XLIV (No. 2), p. 116). Even more fantastic is apologist Joseph Smith’s claim that the accuracy is 99.8 percent similar to that of Jochen Katz’. Who shall we believe? 99.8, 95 or 83.5 percent? We haven’t yet tackled the amazing leap of logic that apologists assume between the best manuscripts and the nonexistent non-surviving ‘original copy’.

      You claim that it is impossible to invent history. Yet we have good evidence of history being made up in the so called Comma Johanneum containing an invented text from as late as the 12th century which made its way into the Authorised King James Version in 1611. This version became the most popular of all even to this very day. It was not until 1946 in the Revised Standard Version that the text that millions of Christians had believed were inspired were removed as an interpolation i.e. fabrication. This means that an invented fabricated text remained as truth though it was false for at least 300 years! This was at a time when literacy rates were exceptionally higher than the first century CE when printing was already available. What is even more alarming is the fact that the invented text does not conspicuously damage the fluidity of the passage itself. If this was possible when there were already Biblical scholars around and many ordinary Christians were also able to read how much more 1950 years ago?

      We have the longer ending of Mark which also crept into numerous Bibles and remained as inspired text for centuries before being deemed as an interpolation by mainstream scholarship. Today we have the so called Pericope Adulterae which is still part of the so called “inspired text” of most Bibles even though the vast majority of scholars agree that it is not original to the Gospel According to John and is something that came into “a Bible”(specifically a codex) in the 5th century i.e. Codex Bezae. Other codices predating Bezae such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus does not contain it and those contamperaneous to it such as Alexandrinus and Washingtanianus also do not contain it. Yet, it is one of the most beloved stories told from the Bible passed of as an actual historical incident in traditional Christian communities. It is also worth noting that not a single one of the early Patristic sources mention the story. It is clear that your claim that, “It virtually impossible to invent history.” is very silly. What is even more silly is your analogy,”For example how hard would it be to re-write the history books and claim that Germany had won the second world war? This is similar to what you are attempting with your refutation of the crucifixion e.t.c.”. We have history books written during the world war and records directly from that time including photos, videos and people who fought in those wars to be interviewed with their exact names, documents and medals proving that they did indeed participate in the happenings. None of these can be said about your so called “eyewitnesses” almost 2000 years ago. Let’s reproduce what Harry Gamble says:
      Complaints about the adulteration of texts are fairly frequent in early Christian literature. Christian texts, scriptural and nonscriptural, were no more immune than others from vicissitudes of unregulated transmission in handwritten copies. In some respects they were more vulnerable than ordinary texts, and not merely because Christian communities could not always command the most competent scribes. Although Christian writings generally aimed to express not individual viewpoints but the shared convictions and values of a group, members of the group who acted as editors and copyists must often have revised texts in accordance with their own perceptions. This temptation was stronger in connection with religious or philosophical texts than with others simply because more was at stake. A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities, and even documents that were not polemically conceived might nevertheless be polemically used. Any text was liable to emendation in the interest of making it more pointedly serviceable in a situation of theological controversy.”(Gamble, H.Y.(1995). Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History Of Early Christian Texts.Yale University Press: New Haven & London. pp. 123-124)

      This is not just idle thinking. Origen as early as the 2nd century observes what the above notes:
      “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”(Cited in ‘Misquoting Jesus’, by Bart Ehrman, pp. 52)

      Origen also records an observer from the outside, Celcus who says:
      “Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Against Celcus 2.27)” (Ibid.)

      Where were the Origens and Gambles of Jesus’ and the apostles’ time? We don’t have them! We have shown to you time and again throughout Christian history, every century in fact, people make things up and try to pass them off as inspired historical information. These contrived fiction were popularly accepted in times when the Christian communities were already quite sophisticated with higher literacy rates. If information could have been falsified and made up during these times, it logically follows that it was even more likely that they were in the first few decades after Jesus’ time.

      You said:
      RE: eyewitnesses
      1 John 1:1 “That which…we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes….”
      2 Peter 1:16 “…but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
      Luke a secondary witness had perfect understanding of all things from the very first from the eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-3).

      1 John 1:1? Who are the “we” mentioned there? Do you understand what “eyewitnesses” are? If I was caught for murder and am requested to produce an alibi what do I do? Can I just say, “I was with him/them when the murder took place at the mall”? The opposing lawyer will ask, “Who are these people that were with you?”. What is the answer that will help my case? A definite and exact identification of those persons/alibis correct? Can I just say John, peter, Matthew, Carl, Max etc.? Of course not. Anybody can make up names and throw them around. Prove that those people were indeed there and saw the happenings. Can you do that? Of course, you can’t. Even today, people can make up claims, “Oh, I was there and I saw it.” No one will be the wiser! We have already shown that Peter did not write 1st or 2nd Peter. These are pseudonymous works which means whoever wrote them lied and claimed that they/he were the apostle Peter. How trustworthy are such individuals who claim to be someone when they’re not? Luke was a secondary witness who had perfect understanding from the very first eyewitnesses? This is not true. We have already shown that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a common source. Luke itself is without an identified author. We don’t know who wrote it like all the other gospels. I don’t need to repeat my points on this. But did the anonymous author of Luke have “perfect understanding” of all things?

      In Luke 2, verse 1 and 2 the following is stated,

      “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)”

      Jamieson-Fausset-Brown admits that there is a rather difficult problem involved in the verses which I have discussed here. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown admits,

      “2. first . when Cyrenius, &c.-a very perplexing verse, inasmuch as Cyrenius, or Quirinus, appears not to have been governor of Syria for about ten years after the birth of Christ, and the “taxing” under his administration was what led to the insurrection mentioned in Ac 5:37.”

      No doubt, there is a problem here, but, that was not the only point of contention that I raised in the Paltalk Christian room. My other contention was on the fact that the verses claim that there was a worldwide(of the Roman empire) census decreed by Augustus. Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown makes the bold claim that,

      “That there was a taxing, however, of the whole Roman Empire under Augustus, is now admitted by all; and candid critics, even of skeptical tendency, are ready to allow that there is not likely to be any real inaccuracy in the statement of our Evangelist.”

      Is such a bold claim true to what we find in real history? Firstly, what one needs to know is that Jamieson-Fausset-Brown was written around 130 years ago just like Sir William Ramsay lived more than a hundred years ago. Current studies have yielded strong results that oppose both Jamieson-Fausset-Brown and Ramsay. Today we know that it is historically untenable that there was a worldwide census that covered the whole Roman empire at one time under Augustus. It is equally untenable to suggest that a global census took place as ordered by Augustus during Quirinius’ governorship and the reign of Herod. This is observed by Rev. Geoffrey W.H. Lampe(M.C., D.D.) who’s Ely Professor of Divinity in Cambridge University in his commentary on Luke.

      “In making this point Lk. seems to have made use of historical data with which he was imperfectly acquainted. A census was helf about A.D. 6, when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Coponius procurator of Judaea (Jos. A.t XV!!, xiii, 5 ; XVIII, i, I). This is referred to in Ac. 5:37, and Lk. was probably uncertain of its date and ignored its inconsistency involved here in associating it with the reign of Herod. A census ordered by Augustus could scarcely have taken place in Herod’s dominions without provoking disturbances, and would be unlikely to be unnoticed by Josephus. Lk.’s allusion to this as the ‘ first enrollment ‘ suggests that he is thinking of the census which, as the first to be held under the Roman administration of Judaea, caused the revolt of Judas of Galilee. There is evidence for the taking of a census every fourteen years in Egypt, the series possibly going back to A.D. 6; but there is no sure evidence for the extension of this system to other parts of the Empire at so early a date, and no mention is made by josephus of regular enrolments. On the evidence of Strabo, combined with two inscriptions, the lapis Venetus and the very fragmentary lapis Tiburinus, it has been argued that Quirinius was in Syria with an extraordinary legatine commission for military operations in Cilicia between 10 and 7 B.C., or possibly as holding a first governorship of the province from 3 to 2 B.C. If the former possibility were established, the historical problem would still not be completely solved; if the latter, the inconsistency with a dating in Herod’s reign still stands. Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv, 19) dates the birth of Jesus in the governorship over Syria of Saturninus (9 to 6 B.C.), which may well be correct.” [1] (emphasis added)

      Moreover, Rev. George Ogg(B.SC., D.D., D. Litt) says,

      “The assumption seems inevitable that Lk. 2:2 is an insertion made by a person who wrongly identified that enrolment of Lk 2:1 with a well-known enrolment of Judaea made by Quirinius in A.D. 6/7.” [2] (emphasis added)

      The late Prof. Raymond E. Brown who had been described as one of the ‘preeminent biblical scholars’ notes,

      “In the case of Luke’s census by Caesar Augustus of the whole world when Quirinius was governor of Syria(2:1-2), a census that presumably was made when Herod the Great was King of Judea(1:5), we have a similar problem. In the same Birth of the Messiah, I examined all the historical records about the governorship of Quirinius in Syria and census by Augustus. There never was a single census that covered the whole world under Augustus, and the census (of Judea, not involving Nazareth!) that took place under Quirinius occured about ten years after the death of Herod the Great, and presumably, therefore, after the birth of Jesus. One is hard-pressed, then, to think that either evangelist is accurate on public events. Probably postfactum(after the resurrection) the birth of Jesus was associated with loose memories of phenomena that occured in a period of ten years before or after his birth.” [3] (emphasis added)

      Much more recently, the Bible expert and pre-eminent textual critic Prof. Bart D. Ehrman in his latest book says,

      “The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. And how could such a thing even be imagined? Joseph returns to Bethlehelm because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the towns of our ancestors a thousand years back – where would you go? Can you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind of universal exodus would require? And can you imagine that such a project would never be mentioned in any of the newspapers? There is not a single reference to any such census in ny ancient source, apart from Luke.” [4] (emphasis added)

      What is the result of this little excercise? The result does not look good for the fundamental Christian. In verse 3 of Luke 1, the author with much boldness makes the claim for his writing that,

      “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus”

      Apparently, it wasn’t that perfect or carefully investigated after all! The fact that he got things wrong at the early stages of his writings points to the falsity of his claim that he had investigated carefully or perfect understanding as the KJV and ASV renders it. How then can anyone attribute this to inerrant divine inspiration?

      References:

      [1] Matthew Black, Geoffrey W.H. Lampe. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Luke(1962). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 825

      [2] Matthew Black, G. Ogg. Ibid. p. 728

      [3] Raymond E. Brown. Response to 101 Questions on the Bible(1990). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Pres s. p. 79

      [4] Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus, Interrupted(2009). New York: HarperCollins. p. 32-33

      (See also L. Michael White, Scripting Jesus, pp. 235-239 for a lengthy discussion on this problem)

      You said:
      RE: Jarius daughter.
      The synagogue ruler may have said both statements:
      For example (Mark): ‘my daughter is at the point of death…..’
      Then, WHAMO, someone from the crowd gives a sign or verbally whispers to him the girl is dead. Maybe the spirit of God told him?
      Seconds later he pleads with Jesus (Matthew): ‘my daughter has just died…..’.

      You do have a point, I admit, but the miracle was that she was raised from the dead which both accounts agree on. If it was a mistake then I believe it to be a genuine one without conspiracy. If it had been a conspiracy then they could have adjusted the stories to ‘make them fit’ anyway! Remember also that eyewitness see and hear events from a different angle, yet the overall story is the same.

      My reply:
      Thank you for submitting the point. I’m sure it wasn’t easy to do so. I do appreciate it. Now, I do not think that it was a mistake, nor do many scholars today. We have already seen that Mark was the first to be written followed by Matthew and Luke both of whom used Mark as a common source. This is known as the “two-source hypothesis” in response to the so called “Synoptic Problem” first proposed in the 1780s and made popular by Johann Griesbach. As L. Michael White states, “By far the most widely accepted theory of synoptic relationships is called the “Two-Source Hypithesis”.(White, L.M. Op. Cit., pp. 10) Now with the framework laid by the hypothesis we can critically assess the texts and look at the implications that can be derived from them. I have elucidated that many passages are polished and modified to make Jesus look better than he was in the primitive layers of tradition. If the story of Jairus’ daughter is the only example, then our case isn’t really a strong one. However, we see that time and again Matthew polishes Mark’s account by removing and adding certain details that do indeed have theological and christological implications. These implications show that Matthew’s picture of Jesus is christologically more developed than the Markan portrayal. This is no coincidence. It is purposeful and clearly theologically motivated.

      You said:
      You are right here. Only some do. My mistake. However my sources tell me that p46, p66 and p67 are within 150 years from the originals.
      Isn’t it fascinating that p52 speaks of Jesus trial before his execution?

      My reply:
      Thank you for submitting the point here as well. What do you mean that p46, p66 and p67 are within 150 years from the originals? p46 contain the Pauline epistles, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians and they are all dated to the 2nd century. That’s more than 150 years after Paul wrote his epistles. Young Kyu Kim had suggested an earlier dating to the first century, but this has been refuted by S.R. Pickering( The Dating Of The Chester Beatty-Michigan Codex Of The Pauline Epistles (P46)” in T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, C. E. V. Nixon and A. M. Nobbs (eds.), Ancient History In A Modern University: Volume II (Early Christianity, Late Antiquity And Beyond), 1998, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, NSW Australia and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids (Michigan)/Cambridge (UK), pp. 216-227.)If you look at the table given in the Alands’ book p46 is dated to the late second century and p66 and p67 are dated to the 3rd century respectively (See my article with the scanned pages from the book here: http://unveilingchristianity.w.....nuscripts/).

      You cited the following:
      Matt Slick says:
      ‘Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.’
      and
      “If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer…”
      …..because there are far fewer manuscripts for them and they are much, much further from the originals.

      My reply:
      It is amusing that you cite Matt Slick. This apologist is the same person who ate his own shoe when he said, ““The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles. It is the source of the Christian religion in that the Bible contains the words of God and how the Christian is to apply the words of God to his life.”(http://www.carm.org/seek/Bible.htm)

      Notice that he says the Bible contains fiction. Exactly, it certainly does. He mentions p52. Did you look at the fragment? Look at it again http://unveilingchristianity.w.....testament/. In the words of Helmut Koester, “The fragment of John in P52 is so small that is immaterial as a textual witness.”(Helmut Koester(1989). The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. p. 19). Slick isn’t so slick after all. He says that this fragment dated to 125 C.E. was written 29 years after the Gospel According to John was written. That means the gospel was written in 96 C.E.. Can you truly believe a man close to 100 years old is able to write a nice essay grammatically, cohesive and coherent essay let alone a book? Do you believe such a man is able to retain every single historical memory accurately without mistakes and embellishments? These questions are actually quite moot since scholars are all but agreed that the fourth gospel is anonymous.

      You said:
      “If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer…”
      …..because there are far fewer manuscripts for them and they are much, much further from the originals.

      You said: ‘You compare the vast number of manuscripts for the NT to that of Plato and Aristotle. This is easily explained by virtue of the popularity of one over the other. None of the ancient writers enjoyed as much popularity as garnered by the movement later known as Christianity…’
      I would say the popularity of the N.T. over other documents proves its power and truth. It also provides a lot more evidence as the scriptures were multiplied thousands of times without significant variation as mentioned above.

      My reply:
      I have proven the above assumptions false more than twice now. The variations are innumerable and very significant in many places e.g. Mark 1:2, 1 Timothy 3:16, Mark 1:1, John 1:34, John 8:16, John 9:35, Luke 3:22, Luke 23:34, Luke 24:34, Luke 24:6 and 12, Luke 24:51 etc. Do I need to go on? There are so many variations and no two manuscript are alike as we have already mentioned. What about the manuscript evidence for ancient Greek writers as opposed to NT manuscripts? I have already discussed this in full detail! I’m not sure why you’re repeating the same points that i have already clarified and refuted. Let’s reproduce what I said about this:
      Only 53 out of the 5686 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are dated to before 400 CE. That’s ONLY 0.9321139641224059% out of 100! You are absolutely wrong to claim that most of the manuscripts go back to within 300 years of the so called originals. You claim that some are found within the first 150 years which is also wrong! The only material dated to the first 125 to 150 years of the common era is p52. This is an immaterial textual witness and it’s not even a manuscript. It’s a badly prevered piece of fragment no bigger than your credit card. Please refer to my article on this here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....testament/. It’s quite evident you’re not very familiar with textual criticism when you simply regurgitate apologetic claims. How do you know that the originals and not the corrupted material that was copied and handed down and so that most of the manuscripts today are based on a corrupted source rather than the original? This is exactly the question that Ehrman raises in his ‘Misquoting Jesus’. The problem is that the oldest fragments and extant manuscripts that you have are copies of copies of copies of copies ad nauseam. There is no certain way that you can know that the copies could be traced back to the actual originals and not corrupted ones. You compare the vast number of manuscripts for the NT to that of Plato and Aristotle. This is easily explained by virtue of the popularity of one over the other. None of the ancient writers enjoyed as much popularity as garnered by the movement later known as Christianity. It is thus natural that the texts that form the bedrock of the faith is copied down time and again. This however, does not mean that it is well preserved. In fact, to compare the meticulous preservation or lack thereof of Greek ancient writings to that of the New Testament is folly. There was hardly any vested interest to corrupt or amend the texts of ‘The Republic’, ‘The Nachomachean’ or ‘The Illiad’ for the simple reason that they had little influence over the political and theological realities of the times compared to the Christianities that emerged in the first and more so in the second century CE with each group or individual eager to propel their own perspectives and theological leanings. G.A. Wells rightly says:
      “I have noted elsewhere that, if there had been a Tacitus club in every European town for 1,000 or more years with as much influence as the local Christian clergy, sections of the Annals would not have been lost. And if, instead of copying orthodox literature repeatedly, Christian scribes had copied works regarded as heretical or even downright hostile to Christianity, we should have a much clearer picture of what underlay the church’s struggle against opposing forces.”
      Hence, the abundance in material is reflective of the popularity garnered by the Christianities that emerged in the first century onwards. However, as I have noted these copies themselves were prone to errors both intentional and otherwise. In fact, Origen in the third century observes this textual corruption phenomenon:
      “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.”(Cited in ‘Misquoting Jesus’, by Bart Ehrman, pp. 52)

      Origen also records an observer from the outside, Celcus who says:
      “Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism. (Against Celcus 2.27)” (Ibid.)

      You do realise that no two of the thousands of manuscripts that you have are alike right? In fact, to put it in its correct perspective, there are “are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”(Ibid. pp.10)

      In addition, Dr. Klaus Junack, a researcher at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, Universität Münster, Germany, who is one of the leading experts in NT Greek manuscripts, states:
      “Today more than 5,000 manuscripts are known: the overwhelming majority of these are from the medieval and late medieval periods, but on occasion they also preserve readings from the early period.” (K. Junack, “The Reliability Of The New Testament Text From The Perspective Of Textual Criticism”, The Bible Translator, 1978, Volume XXIX, Issue I, p. 131.)

      Do you realise that only 327 of the 5745 Greek manuscripts of the NT as of 2005 are dated to before the 9th century? That’s only 6 percent of the entire corpus of Greek NT manuscripts dated to before the 9th century!

      Ehrman puts it in the CORRECT perspective as he says:
      “… the New Testament is preserved in far more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. There are for example, fewer than 700 copies of Homer’s Iliad, fewer than 350 copies of the plays of Euripides, and only one copy of the first six books of the Annals of Tacitus… Of course, we would expect the New Testament to be copied in the Middle Ages more frequently than Homer or Euripides or Tacitus; the trained copyists throughout the Western world at the time were Christian scribes, frequently monks, who for the most part were preparing copies of texts for religious purposes. Still, the fact that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that were made during the Middle Ages, many of them nearly a thousand years after Paul and his companions had passed off the face of the earth, does not mean that we can rest assured that we know what the original text said. For if we have very few early copies, in fact, scarcely any, how can we know that the text was not changed significantly before it began to be reproduced in such large quantities?”
      (Ehrman,B. D.(2000). The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, Second Edition. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp.443)

      You said:
      OK. I did make a mistake here. I was trying to make a point that you have fallen short of Gods glory which you don’t believe. In my eagerness I took it a step too far. No one can say they are equal with God or have his glorified state, however, one can still not ‘fall short of his glory’ because they are sinless and made in his image. Adam and Eve were created by God and for that very reason did not fall short of his glory. They were an example of his glory. We however have sinned and do fall short of his glory which not only Paul but the Psalmist and Isaiah testify.

      My reply:
      Thank you for submitting the point again. You make the claim however, that they knew that “eating the fruit was wrong”. But according to the narrative they were without knowledge of good and bad prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Don’t you find your claim to be anachronistic? lol Do I really have to explain to you that a person without the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil is incompetent and shouldn’t be regarded in the same manner as someone who is able to do so?

      You said:
      “I would suggest that, because you don’t believe you have fallen short of Gods glory, you see no need for redemption/salvation. You actually don’t believe you need it! This is the error of Islam. I pray that you will see your true spiritual state and ask Gods mercy through his son Jesus.”

      My reply:
      That’s actually false. I don’t believe that I am not in need of salvation. I do need it as do any other person including Muslims. In fact, Muhammad s.a.w. is recorded to have said that all children of Adam makes mistakes, but the best is he who repents. My point of contention is with your typical Christian mode of thinking that everyone is such a bad sinner it’s impossible to be reconciled with God except through some vampiric cultic shedding of blood. I don’t believe God is a blood thirsty vampire like Christians do even though they don’t phrase it as such. Muslims do not believe that salvation comes directly from another man, be it Jesus or anyone else. Salvation comes directly from God communicated to us via the angels and prophets sent to us. Let us reproduce my contentions against your false beliefs to which you have all but remained silent:
      I think you are overstating your case here quite a bit. If it was God’s plan and divine decree how can it be outrageous? The fact is it was never His decree nor plan and that is why it is outrageous. Those passages and verses that I cited make no mention of blood sacrifice at all. The paralytic in Mark 2:5 had all his sins forgiven and there was not a shed of blood dropped in accordance with the Levitical instructions to blot out those sins. Rather he was forgiven without blood as were the people on Jonah 3 and numerous others in the Old Testament and New Testament too. How exactly is killing one’s own beloved son a show of one’s great love? You ould cite John 3:16 to convey His love for the world. Does that mean that He loved the world more than His own son that He would not hesitate to let him die an agonising and brutal death for killers, rapists and thieves? If the Father was so loving why did He not come Himself to die instead of having His BELOVED son die? It is the mark of a good and loving Father to protect his offspring and stand in the firing line if need be. There is no show of love here but only insanity. Can you imagine in a court of law 5 rapists and killers who have murdered 70 women and raped them are brought before a judge and found guilty of their crimes. The judge pronounces the punishment that it is death bu crucifixion for their horrendous criminal activities. Instead of giving them the punishment the judge calls for his little boy of 3 years old…an innocent little boy to appear before the court. The judge cum father looks over to the son and says, “My son…you know how much I love you…you know that you love me so much too.” You see those 5 men there. They are very evil. But I love them too. So this is what I’m going to do..my son you will have to die for them. The son then begs the father, “LET THIS CUP PASS BY ME”. The Father says, “I love you my so, but this has to take place.” The son is dragged out of the court, crucified and killed. The Father lovingly without a shed of tear looks at the 5 rapists and killers and give them each a blow kiss and says, “I love you all and your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more.” If this were to take place in any civilised world, the judge would be castrated and killed by angry mobs for such audacity. Yet, it is this very picture that you have painted for God. The atonement process in Christianity is the most dastardly lie ever concocted against God.

      “The bible says that all have fallen short of Gods glory (Rom 2:23). We all need redemption. Remember, we can all be rapists and murderers in our heart without lifting a finger (Matthew 5:28). A loving God extends hope to all people…even Hitler or Saddam Hussein…if they sincerely repent and believe. The old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.”

      It is Paul who believes that everyone has fallen short of God’s glory. He goes on to say in the same book that “none is righteous, not even one.” Some years later an author wrote the gospel according to Luke and he refutes Paul’s claim inadvertently when he writes about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6) The key word is blamelessly which is translated from amemptoi which is derived from memphomai meaning “above reproach because morally pure”. You said “A loving God extends hope to all people”…A loving God extends hope to all people and if he ever had a son I think that love and hope would reach the son too unless He’s very loving to all except His own son. What kind of a God is that? You claim that the “old sin nature is done away with at the cross so we can live right before God.” But Christian theology teaches that even after grace Christians are not sinless. They are as prone to sin as any other. So called born again Christians are not angels. In many cases they have been shown to be the worse of the lot e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, Kent Hovind etc.

      As usual, try harder.

  73. mrkiller says:

    luke claims to have interveiwed people . one has to figure out how old were the people he interviewed? how old was the authour of luke? and how far away from the events were these people? if we forget things in 2 minutes what about 10 years later? what about a different country? what about illness? memory loss?

    how do we work on oral tradition? lets say a very early oral tradition has jesus crying out ‘ADONAI forgive me FOR MY SINS’
    that oral tradition would be dropped like a hot patatoe, so not all oral tradition would be converted to text

    in the gospels ,carefull reader will note that the narrators tell us that ppl were ready to belive in bull s hit . even bull s hit about jesus, and he didnot tell his deciples to clear his name. this was a culture where bull sh it was accepted whole heartedly without critical inquiry. consider matthews claim, he says the jew till this day claim that the deciples stole jesus’ body

    ‘WIDELY KNOW TILL THIS DAY’ or how about jesus turning crowds against jesus in 2 days? or how about paul getting pissed off with peter for becoming legalistic after he saw ppl from james coming? we don’t have pete’s response to paul , all we have is pauls version.

  74. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings The Bull,
    You said:
    Even though I think you are mostly ‘wrong’ I am very impressed by your zeal and the amount of time and energy you seem to spend researching and dealing with all these issues. Is apologetics and this web-site your full time job?

    My reply:
    I thank you for engaging me with your thoughts, ideas and questions. Our exchange has been rather constructive I should think. I apologise if I ruffled any feathers with some of the words or things said. To be honest I was getting a little annoyed at your relentless replies lol, but I have enjoyed the discourse very much as I hope you would have as well. Apologetics, theology, comparative religion and philosophy constitute a rather large segment of my daily life. The site itself does not occupy me 24/7, but it is a good platform for me to communicate the things that I have studied and acquired with the rest of the world. What about you? How involved are you in apologetics?

    • The Bull says:

      Greetings Ibn

      This business, by its very nature, can get a bit raw and heated. Think of it like a game of Rugby. You give each other a hiding (hopefully respectfully) and then you have a few drinks afterwards in the pavillion. This is trivialising it a bit, because it is really no joke, but I hope you get the picture. It’s very difficult not to get emotional because this stuff is the foundation of our very lives. I got booted off an athiest site rather harshly. I try not to take things too personally. If I got you to ‘ruffle feathers’ then that is a good thing (I think).
      Now, back to the game…. (although I think its half time :) )

  75. mrkiller says:

    “Just as Bethel, Bethshemesh and Bethanath should be. They are literally “house of El”, “house of Shemesh” and “house of Anath”, but they are indeed names of places. Let’s include Bethdagon. One might add Bethlehem, given that Lachmu is a known god of the area and there are no early historical pointers to suggest otherwise. Post hoc etymologies are obscurant (as “house of bread” would appear to be).

    Now how many Hebrew phrases can you cite in the Hebrew tradition starting with “Beth” and followed by a name that do not conform with being a toponym that suggests a temple-centered town?

    Now the city of Jerusalem was in pre-Hebrew times called Urushalim, the “foundation or city of Shalim” (yet another deity). This should have become Irshalim in Hebrew, just as the city is sometimes called Ir-dwd, literally the “city of the beloved”, but translated as the “city of David”. Presumably there was a temple to the same deity in the city, which naturally would allow the toponym, BYTDWD.”

    bull u say Allah = moon god, so who was shalim?

  76. KAZ says:

    What’s with the large amounts of bullshit from The Bull anyway???

    So full of shit I say!!!

  77. carlson says:

    it would allow itself to peg itself to a cross
    it would return its finite life to its infinite life
    it + 3 bits in trinity would allow romans to peg itself to a cross so then itself could allow itself to ask forgiveness for allowing the romans to peg it to a cross
    it has divine backing for the process and the termination of itself is controlled termination .

    so basically it is a cheat

    15. Even if the divine nature could suffer (which it can’t), it would not avail to satisfy the penalty for sin because that penalty is owed by humanity (not divinity) and must be paid by the human nature.

    Even if the divine nature in Christ could suffer somehow, it could not contribute toward satisfaction. Satisfaction to divine justice had to be made by the human nature alone, not by the divine nature in any way.

    This fact would seem to rule out the power which you allege that the divine nature (which itself experienced no suffering) bestowed on the sufferings of the human nature. For if that infinite power does not arise from the human nature but is bestowed on the sufferings by his divine nature, I fail to see how satisfaction could have been made to divine justice. Divine justice not only requires that human nature itself should make satisfaction, but divine justice also utterly demands that the power of satisfaction should come from human nature.

    An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.

    The law that decreed the punishment careful-ly takes into account the typical strength of a human being, and metes out punishment to harm the offender as the seriousness of the crime warrants. If the offender’s strength ismiraculously increased, then the offender does not yet feel the affliction that the law intends. Consequently, a fair judge would never allow a guilty person to be strength-ened and supported in this way. But suppose that the transgressor is furnished with ex-traordinary strength that far and away ex-ceeds the strength people typically possess, so that the burden which is heavy for everyone else is not particularly heavy for this individual. Since the force of the burden cannot—or rather, should not—be diminished, the fair judge, complying with the spirit of the law rather than its letter, will increase the burden. The judge will do this because the intent of the law is that the transgressor should experience the weight of the burden that the transgression demands.

    …If this human nature is strengthened from a source outside itself, so that it experienced the punishment much less—or even somewhat less—than the law required, the human nature will not have made satisfaction to the law in any way (pp. 79-81).

  78. carlson says:

    who is willing to argue that thier god relinquished being a god @ the time he allowed himself to punish himself to make himself happy because he allowed himself to punish himself and defeat death even though death is subservient to god and not the other way.

  79. mansubzero says:

    FEMALE lamb / male lamb?

    PROOF:
    The fourth case of ḥata’t sacrifice detailed in chapter 4 (verses 27-35) relates to an individual who unintentionally does something that the Torah forbids; in this case, he is required to offer either a female goat (verses 27-31) or a female lamb (verses 32-35).

    The important point to note in connection with this chapter is that these are all PRIVATE sacrifices, offered by an INDIVIDUAL in connection with something that he PERSONALLY has done. This is a very different situation from a COMMUNAL sacrifice that is offered on behalf of the entire nation! And yes, for a PRIVATE sin-offering made by an individual under Vayikra 4:32-35, a lamb could be used instead of the more preferable goat—but, whether the penitent chose to offer a goat or a lamb, in either case it had to be a FEMALE animal. So even in this case there is no “parallel” with Yoshke.

    ..

    maybe christianity should replace son with daughter?

  80. clarkson says:

    dear christians
    why are you disgusting hypocrites?
    you call Allah the GOD OF THE WORLDS ‘moon god’ yet you know not word of hebrew or older forms of hebrew words which were used for pagan gods. your own god like pagan gods before him word flesh and blood i.e became blood/flesh god. your own god has father -son -mother relationship/ reproDUCTIVE titles . is this not disgusting? your god took whoopings, so did pagan gods, here is proof:

    My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.
    Jainism. Vitaragastava 14.5

    dear christians ,you don’t know about this because of christian hegemony. for example you think easter and christmas tree were always christian, but the truth is christianity grabbed an idea because it was sellable to the people. think about it, greece is massive and one can always tell his /her porkies in different part of greece.

    christians , you believe a god popped out of a vagina and then you have the audacity to say GOD OF ISLAM, LORD OF THE WORLDS is ‘moon god’
    you will have to answer to HIM (ALLAH)one day christians .

  81. clarkson says:

    christians, you really think peter or whoever needed a vision from god to tell him that ALL foods are alright for consumption ?
    no christians , peter is not the peter who knew the jesus. if peter of your nt was the peter who knew jesus , why is it THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO DERIVE THE ARAMAIK behind the greek peter in nt?

    christians, you really think peter or whoever needed a vision from god to tell him that ALL foods are alright for consumption ?
    no, it was just a greek christian who thought that dietry laws in judaism are DUMB of no use. just like many athests today who ask ‘why would god care about what you eat’? so the greek athiest/christian who LOVED PAGAN greek culture created a lie that god made all foods permissable . see where i am getting at, christians?

    you can read about the love christianity has hadfor greek
    http://vridar.wordpress.com/20.....an-empire/

    http://vridar.wordpress.com/20.....an-ideals/
    what an AFFAIR
    what an affair

  82. steve irvin says:

    bull, in reply to you

    In the Gospels, Jesus forgave sins before he died. John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, which Jesus seems to have approved of. Some sects of Judaism rejected the blood sacrifice of the Temple, believing God is omnipotent and merciful, and that he could forgive sins without the shedding of animal blood. Like Jesus, they said people should simply repent and follow the law.

    Why would Jesus’ bloody and painful sacrifice even be necessary? Let me ask you this: When Jesus sent out the Twelve to tell people to repent (Mark 6:12), what was the means of salvation? And did his disciples have to go back out again after the crucifixion and talk to the initial converts about version 2 of the message?

    • The Bull says:

      Hi Steve

      You said “In the Gospels, Jesus forgave sins before he died.”

      Remember, we think he is God so it is not a problem. Also, Jesus had the power to forgive sins because it was he who would appropriate that forgiveness on the cross…Mark 2:10 “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins…”

      You said : “Like Jesus, they said people should simply repent and follow the law.”

      I guess this is what Muslims are doing and actually most religions on earth. We are all trying to be nice good people. The trouble is everyone has broken the law and our motives are usually self-serving. If you went to court because of murder, it does not matter to the judge that you helped 100 old ladies cross the road and fed 5.7 billion starving orphans; you would still go to jail for 20 years. In a round about fashion this illustrates Gods attitude to sin.

      The atonement system was set up by God and it required a temple, a priestly class and a high priest e.t.c. Each year the high priest would perform the duty (see Leviticus 23:26,27 and Chapter 16). This system disappeared because Jesus became the eternal high priest and was the perfect sacrifice to appease Gods Justice (see Hebrews 9:7-15).
      Are you too, like the other 1.x billion Muslims, just going to ignore this historical and spiritual fact?

      You said “Why would Jesus’ bloody and painful sacrifice even be necessary? Let me ask you this: When Jesus sent out the Twelve to tell people to repent (Mark 6:12), what was the means of salvation”

      The same means of salvation that has always existed; repent and ask Gods forgiveness by faith through his blood atonement (in which ever covenant you are in). Also, baptism is symbolic of having sins washed away through the death and resurrection of Christ. (Romans 6:3-4).

      Islam in contrast has no real mechanism to forgive sins. It teaches that the good you do must outweigh the bad. The problem is, this will not appease Gods demand for justice. Christ offers rest for the soul because you don’t need to strive anymore. It’s his victory and glory over sins to which we cling to.

  83. forgeries says:

    forgeries would have easily been detected?

    like this one
    http://www.errancywiki.com/ind.....rse_Thesis

    ?

  84. The Bull says:

    Hi Ibn

    RE: manuscript reliability:
    The consoling facts in that regard are: (1) that the vast majority of the variant readings are so slight (a mere question of a single letter, or an accent, or a prefix, or a case ending) as not to raise any question at all concerning the true sense of the passage; and (2) that the sum of all the variant readings taken together does not give ground for the slightest doubt as to any of the fundamental points of faith and doctrine. In other words, the very worst Text that could be constructed from the abundant materials available would not disturb any of the great truths of the Christian faith. (See True or False?, 2nd printing, ed. by David O. Fuller, 1975, p. 62)

    The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray

    J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Va.: Gano, 1982 reprint of 1857 edition), pp.24, 25.

    but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus.

    Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p.271.

    So regardless of what figure, 99.5 or 85 percent accuracy, there is no reason, according to the above reasoning, to doubt the accuracy and integrity of the N.T. I personally believe the ‘majority text’ to be the more accurate of the two families. Most of the ‘insignificant’ differences come from the much smaller Alexandrian family.

    You said: “Yet we have good evidence of history being made up in the so called Comma Johanneum..”

    Remember the doctrine of the trinity has considerable NT support and was of course an established doctrine before the Comma. In other words, it was not needed to support the doctrine of the trinity. It was not inventing history as far as the church was concerned.
    The J. Comma was probably in the originals. It’s something that we will not know for sure until history proves otherwise.

    I stand by my statement that history is virtually impossible to invent; certainly on a grand scale. A tiny disputed passage in a book is very different to a large scale historical event such as the public trial and execution of a major world figure (which Islam also asserts…I will explain that later).

    You said : ‘What is even more alarming is the fact that the invented text does not conspicuously damage the fluidity of the passage itself”
    That’s right. It doesn’t damage the fluidity because it was probably in the originals!

    You said: “Today we know that it is historically untenable that there was a worldwide census that covered the whole Roman empire at one time under Augustus.”

    The Census of Augustus Documented by Romans
    “He revived the office of the Censor which had long been disused and whose duty it had formerly been to take an account of the number of people.” – Seutonius Roman Historian – Augustus 23 – Lives of the Twelve Caesars

    “He took a census of the people three times” – Augustus 27
    “He took a census of the Roman people street by street ”
    - Augustus 40
    “Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him” – Seutonius Roman Historian – Tiberias 21- Lives of the Twelve Caesars

    “This contained the number of citizens, subject kingdoms and taxes. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand” – Tacitus Annals – Book 1 Roman Historian

    You said: “Cyrenius, or Quirinus, appears not to have been governor of Syria for about ten years after the birth of Christ, and the “taxing” under his administration was what led to the insurrection mentioned in Ac 5:37”

    There are very good reasons to accept that Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice. The first time was before the birth of Christ.

    You said: ‘A census ordered by Augustus could scarcely have taken place in Herod’s dominions without provoking disturbances, and would be unlikely to be unnoticed by Josephus.’

    Cyrenius is Governor of Syria During the Census -Taxing
    “So Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria.Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance.” – Josephus – Antiquities of the Jews – Book 18

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      hahahaha The Bull…did you relly have to stoop to plagiarism? Those are not your words. Those are the words of Douglas C. Chin and Robert C. Newman from kjvonly.org. Clearly, you have no leg to stand upon. You have most probably not even read those citations to begin with and none of what you’ve copied and pasted address any of the points that I have made so far. I have argued that the manuscript evidence do not really support the Christian position and in fact they lend much support to the thesis proposed namely, it was quite easy to make amendments and changes to the texts of scripture and this certainly did happen quite frequently. On the other hand, even when the manuscript reading attest to a passage or a verse, that is, the words are in fact original to the anonymous author that does not mean the information transmitted is original to Jesus’ life. You have yourself conceded that the story of Jairus has mistakes in it, albeit you said they were “genuine mistakes” and not purposefully fashioned the way they appear today. I have refuted this clumsy reply of yours and clearly shown that the changes made have clear theological implications that are in line with the theological goal of the anonymous authors of the gospels. I have also illustrated that the changes made in the manuscript evidence do have significant impact on Christian belief. For example, many KJV-only Christians still use 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence of God’s alleged incarnation. The Pentecostal church uses the longer ending of Mark as textual support for their “speaking in tongues” feats and you have shown your ignorance of the Comma Johanneum by simply posting what the KJV-only fundies allege which incidentally prove the point that the manuscript alterations and amendments do have theological significance.
      You said:
      “I stand by my statement that history is virtually impossible to invent; certainly on a grand scale. A tiny disputed passage in a book is very different to a large scale historical event such as the public trial and execution of a major world figure (which Islam also asserts…I will explain that later).”
      You do realise that there is not a single Roman document apart from one line from Tacitus that mentions Jesus right? There is not a single official Roman document in existence that says Jesus was crucified. We have already proven that there is not a shred of evidence outside the New Testament for Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. 2000 years ago there was no standard department of records keeping the birth and death records of people. You can invent anything about anyone and nobody would be the wiser especially if the people are illiterate to begin with. We have already discussed this point at length and you simply repeat the same points again and again. You’re grasping at straws as you’re drowning really fast. Do you realise that even when public records were in vogue information may still be falsified. For example, the Templars were thought to have been condemned by their judges as heretics and as such they were executed. Some years ago a document was discovered in the Vatican archive showing that the Templars were not excommunicated by Pope Clement V, but were actually absolved of any wrong doing. Yet despite the clarification from academics a lot of people continue to believe that they were purged because of their heresy that the church accused them of committing.

      You said:
      So regardless of what figure, 99.5 or 85 percent accuracy, there is no reason, according to the above reasoning, to doubt the accuracy and integrity of the N.T. I personally believe the ‘majority text’ to be the more accurate of the two families. Most of the ‘insignificant’ differences come from the much smaller Alexandrian family.

      My reply:
      Your personal belief has absolutely no bearing on the facts. Just because something is found in the majority reading that does not mean it is the correct one. A simple example of this may be taken from the case of the Comma Johanneum where the verse used to appear in most translations of the Bible as part of 1 John, but since the Revised Standard Version it has been omitted in many modern versions. I’ve stated this more than twice already, if you have two versions of a story at the earliest stage of its transmission(one original and the other containing some or many embellishments), then for some reason or the other the manuscript containing the embellishments become more influential than the actual original writing and thereafter copies of the embellished texts are produced in large quantities to the extent that it overshadows the original reading that does not mean that the original one automatically becomes null and void. The problem is whether you wish to admit it or not there is no sure way for you to trace the information found in all the manuscripts you can possibly acquire to that of the lost originals. I have already said earlier 99.5 or 85 percent? You do know that even if there were a one percent difference between the alternatives it is still a difference? Who has the numbers right or have people just been throwing numbers around to impress the dim-witted? We have already clearly illustrated that the accuracy of the NT or lack thereof is not only contingent on the manuscript tradition, but also by comparing one version of a story to the other found in the NT itself. Other methods include comparing the information given in the NT to those found in extra-biblical sources. Upon examining the contents together with knowledge of the first century many scholars have indicated that though stories may have appeared in the “original text” of the gospels they are not historically tenable e.g. garden of Gethsemane, Joseph or Many travelling from Galilee to Nazareth(and many more).

      You said:
      You said : ‘What is even more alarming is the fact that the invented text does not conspicuously damage the fluidity of the passage itself”
      That’s right. It doesn’t damage the fluidity because it was probably in the originals!

      It was probably in the originals? Are you suggesting then that for over seven hundred years the verse went missing, but suddenly it appeared in Leon Cathedral out of the blue? The earliest Greek manuscript that contains this verse in the text itself is Codex Ottobonianus dated to the 15th century! The earliest form of it in Greek appeared in marginal notes dated to the 11th century e.g. minuscules 88! It is evident that you do not know what you’re talking about. It is not impossible in Greek or English to invent words that are not original to the writing of the original author without disturbing the flow or fluidity of the grammar and rhythm. Take for example, Shakespeare’s Hamlet which exists in at least three different versions containing sentences and words that are not always in agreement with one another. What we do know for sure is that 1st John 5:7 is rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholarship as false as it has absolutely no evidence in history prior to the 11th century.

      What about the Cencus mentioned in Luke? You have plagiarised all of what you’ve copied and pasted from formerthings.com lol. This gets more sad all the time tsk tsk. Let’s have a look at this issue further then.Formerthings cites Tacitus’ Annals as proof for what is mentioned in Luke. The text from the Annals read as follows in the original Latin:
      “opes publicae continebantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus addideratque consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu an per invidiam.”
      Nowhere does it mention when this took place. In fact, none of the sources used by formethings.com identify the census to Jesus’ time. But it is true that there was a census of Judea in 6 CE as mentioned by Josephus, however this census did not include Galilee and it was certainly not of the entire Roman empire. Geoffrey Lampe has already discussed this in the quotation given which I will reproduce once more:
      “In making this point Lk. seems to have made use of historical data with which he was imperfectly acquainted. A census was helf about A.D. 6, when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Coponius procurator of Judaea (Jos. A.t XV!!, xiii, 5 ; XVIII, i, I). This is referred to in Ac. 5:37, and Lk. was probably uncertain of its date and ignored its inconsistency involved here in associating it with the reign of Herod. A census ordered by Augustus could scarcely have taken place in Herod’s dominions without provoking disturbances, and would be unlikely to be unnoticed by Josephus. Lk.’s allusion to this as the ‘ first enrollment ‘ suggests that he is thinking of the census which, as the first to be held under the Roman administration of Judaea, caused the revolt of Judas of Galilee. There is evidence for the taking of a census every fourteen years in Egypt, the series possibly going back to A.D. 6; but there is no sure evidence for the extension of this system to other parts of the Empire at so early a date, and no mention is made by josephus of regular enrolments. On the evidence of Strabo, combined with two inscriptions, the lapis Venetus and the very fragmentary lapis Tiburinus, it has been argued that Quirinius was in Syria with an extraordinary legatine commission for military operations in Cilicia between 10 and 7 B.C., or possibly as holding a first governorship of the province from 3 to 2 B.C. If the former possibility were established, the historical problem would still not be completely solved; if the latter, the inconsistency with a dating in Herod’s reign still stands. Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv, 19) dates the birth of Jesus in the governorship over Syria of Saturninus (9 to 6 B.C.), which may well be correct.”

      The passage from Josephus that is cited, that is, Antiquities 18.1-2 says that Judaea had been annexed to Syria and Quirinius took a census of their property and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. As pointed out by Dr. L. Michael White this occured in the “37th year after caesar [Augustus] defeated Antony at Actium.” as mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities 18.26. The Battle of Actium itself had taken place in 31 BCE. White discusses this issue at length:
      “As long as Herd or one of his heirs was on the throne of Judea as client-king appointed by the emperor, there was no reason to conduct a census. The king alone was responsible for the taxes owed to Rome; how they were collected did not concern the emperor. In 6 CE, after the removal of Archelaus, Quirinius would have only been commissioned to census Judea (not the Galilee), since only Judea had been brought under his jurisdiction. The Galilee remained a Jewish client-kingdom under Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, until 37 CE. Antipas is the other “Herod” mentioned in the Gospels, who was responsible for the death of John the Baptist, and before whom Jesus was also tried, at least according to Luke. In this last incident (Luke 23:6), the Lukan author shows a clear awareness of jurisdictional prerogatives of the Herodian client-king of the Galilee over against the Roman governor of Judea. There is no evidence from other Roman provinces to suggest that residents of one area would be required to return to their native home in another province in order to register for a tax census.” (White, L.M. (2010). Scripting Jesus. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 238-239)
      The People’s New Testament says:
      ““Luke thus sets the story of Jesus in the context of political struggle, taxation, and the imperial and religious claims of Rome (Acts 26:26!). Luke’s main point is clearly theological, but the details of his historical presentation are problematic. If Jesus was born in the days of Herod, the census or registration was at least ten years later, it was not of all the world but of Judea, and it was not Roman practice to have people return to their native towns to register. Luke, writing eighty or ninety years after the events he narrates, apparently did not have accurate historical information. The claim he makes is not dependent on the accuracy of historical detail…”(Boring, M. E., & Craddock, F. B. (2010). The People’s New Testament. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 181)

      Are there good reasons to believe Quirinius became governor of Syria twice? No, there is none at all as White says:
      It has sometimes been argued that there was an earlier census of Judea or that of Quirinius might have served as governor of Syria more than once. Neither of these claims has any historical merit. On the first, there was no need for a census of Judea so long as Herod or one of his sons was on the throne. Augustus’ edict only applied to provinces governed directly by Rome, not client-kingdoms. On the second, the names of the governors of Roman Syria are now nearly complete between the years 23 BCE and 17 CE. They are as follows:
      23-13 BCE M. Agrippa
      13-11 BCE ?
      CA. 10 BCE M. Titus
      9-6 BCE S. Sentius Saturninus
      6-4 BCE (? later) P. Quintilius Varus
      4-2 BCE ?
      2/1 BCE-4 CE Gaius Caesar
      4-5 CE L. Vousius Saturninus
      6/7 CE P. Sulpicious Quirinius
      12-17 CE Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus

      During this entire period of forty years, the name of the governor is not known in only two intervals totaling four years, as shown above. In both cases, however, it is impossible for Quirinius to have been the “unnamed” governor, since his appointments and whereabouts are known to be elsewhere. In the period 13-11 BCE, he was serving and consul in Rome, and in the period 4-2 BCE, he was serving as governor of Pamphylia-Galatia and leading the compaign against the Homanadenses, for which he won a “triumph” in Rome. Thus, Quirinius cannot have held an earlier governorship of Syria.” (Ibid. pp. 237-238)
      Other scholars who have discussed this issue problem and admit to it as such include B. Riecke, Fitzmyer and D. Potter.
      You might want to try harder and please avoid plagiarism next time.

  85. mrkiller says:

    bull wtf are you talking about? according to JEWISH (not christian) documents HOW did john the baptist forgive sins? stop reading christian hegemony into every jewish forgiveness system.
    did john the baptist require blood of animal to forgive sins? NO he didn’t .john baptised your god . the new testament writers were embarrased by this . they thought ‘ how could john the baptist baptise jesus’ ? so what they did? they made CHANGES to the story. you know, DOWN GRADING john and up lifting jeZUOZ.

    “I guess this is what Muslims are doing and actually most religions on earth. We are all trying to be nice good people. The trouble is everyone has broken the law and our motives are usually self-serving. If you went to court because of murder, it does not matter to the judge that you helped 100 old ladies cross the road and fed 5.7 billion starving orphans; you would still go to jail for 20 years. In a round about fashion this illustrates Gods attitude to sin.”

    you are likening god to a human judge? judges can be manipulated. judges can be given money and allow the criminal to go free. does god in christianity always look back at his SHODDY BLODDY sacrifice when you bull sin in your thoughts and actions? does god say, ‘i forgive you bull because of my shoddy atoning WORKS 2000 years ago and i am SO happy with blood even thought i created it. its okay bull, you can sin in your heart, look at the sexy christian girl in church , i know you cannot rise above sins, that why i had to get myself nailed to a cross because i know you can’t rise above sin, you’ll always sin. in your heart and in your actions, so i will escuse you through 100 percent human blood”

    see bull, your gods blood sacrifice ALLOW S you to get away with FILTHY crimes. your’RE STILL IN SIN.

    what does it mean ‘ broken the law’
    does god EXPECT me to make my ROOM 100 PERCENT CRYSTAL CLEAR even though he knows i have not the ability to do so? he is setting up a standard which he knows will not be met, so instead of butchering himself why not send BRAND knew EASIER laws?

    what is MURDER to the one who IS ABLE TO RESTORE LIVE BILLION TIMES? he can bring back the murdered to life

    what if the murdered asked for his KILLERS forgiveness?
    what if he killer REPENTED and the murdered ASKED for his forgiveness after he was recreated? would not God be Happy/pleased?

    see bull, you are ignorant christian

    islam teaches

    Gabriel hadith: ” To worship God as if you see him, and if you see him not, know that He sees you”

    islam is more focused with the heart than any religion on this planet. your god was more focused with his WORDS /his cheap DEEDS he did to himself via PAGAN roman HANDS
    Our God says FIX up your heart. when you are selling milk don’t decive your customer by mixing the milk with water. know that God watches you.

    bull , when fristians debate the EXISTENCE of GOD , do they point to his bloody shoddy atonement or do they make reference to the bounties and wisdowm that it witnessed in creation?

    • The Bull says:

      You said: ” …why not send BRAND knew EASIER laws? ..”
      A: That is because God is HOLY and he will not compromise his righteousness which is both awesome and perfect.

      You said: “what if he killer REPENTED and the murdered ASKED for his forgiveness after he was recreated? would not God be Happy/pleased? ”
      A: The killer must still ask Gods forgiveness through the work of the Cross.

      You said: “Our God says FIX up your heart.”
      A: Our God says…..’let ME fix your heart.’

      Can you see your need for the Saviour? Only he can save you. There is no one else. You cannot earn your place in heaven. Ephesians (2:8): For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        we’re not vampires The Bull..We don’t believe in the atoning value of blood.

      • abu ismail jaafar says:

        You said: ” …why not send BRAND knew EASIER laws? ..”
        A: That is because God is HOLY and he will not compromise his righteousness which is both awesome and perfect.

        His laws have nothing to do with His holiness and perfection since they are applicable to us, not to Him. He abrogates His laws as He sees fit, according to His infinite wisdom and knowledge, yet none of His attributes can ever be abrogated. How then can anyone measure His holiness with the yardstick of the laws which He sent? “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”- according to your scriptures. Do you believe God exists for the Sabbath, when even man was not made for it? Our God is too merciful to send anyone to hell on a technicality. Nothing- not his laws, not Jesus’ or any one’s blood, can make anything deserving of Him- except through His Grace (Rahma). Thus there is no need for blood atonement when His Grace is more than enough for the Muslim. You are insulting God by implying that the laws He gives humans to follow are the measure of His perfection, when you believe that such laws are not even eternal (is circumcision, or the sabbath, eternal, for instance?), and that He cannot forgive without blood. As Mrkiller said, He created blood- can a creation such as blood be deserving of His Glory? You have a very low opinion of God.

        You said: “what if he killer REPENTED and the murdered ASKED for his forgiveness after he was recreated? would not God be Happy/pleased? ”
        A: The killer must still ask Gods forgiveness through the work of the Cross.

        Which reinforces Mrkiller’s point. Christians have sinned, are sinning, and will continue to sin after the supposed atonement, because blood is a creation, and God is not pleased except by His Grace. It does not have to be the cross. God can use the mere act of repentance as a means to provide His forgiveness, if He wills.

        You said: “Our God says FIX up your heart.”
        A: Our God says…..’let ME fix your heart.’

        God indeed ‘fixes’ our hearts- “Truly, it is by the Remembrance of Allah that hearts find rest.” [Qur'an, 13.28]. But with your low opinion of God, you believe He cannot forgive without created blood. So, no, your false conception of God cannot contain His anger towards Christians, much less fix any human heart.

        Can you see your need for the Saviour? Only he can save you. There is no one else.

        If by Saviour, you mean the Holy Prophet, Jesus Christ, alayhis salam, Muslims and everyone else need to believe in him, just as they need to believe in the Seal of the Prophets, the Best of Creation, Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa salam. But not in the perverted Christian manner as supposed redeemer of sins through blood atonement.

        You cannot earn your place in heaven. Ephesians (2:8): For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–

        True. But not because Paul said it, but because the Prophet Muhammad said so: “None of your works shall enter any of you into paradise.” Someone said, “Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “Not even me, unless Allah conceals me beneath a mercy from Him. But do what is right” (Muslim, 4.2169: 2816. S). And how Merciful this Allah is! The mercy of the mother, much less of a vampiric father, does not compare with the Mercy of Allah- The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “Do you think this woman would ever throw her child in the fire?” We said, “By Allah, she would never throw the child in the fire.” Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “Allah is more kind to His slave than this woman is to her child”.
        [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

      • The Bull says:

        Of course his laws have something to do with his holiness and perfection. They demonstrate his character. He does apply these laws to himself. For example, it is in his nature to never steal or bear false witness.

        You said: “Our God is too merciful to send anyone to hell on a technicality.”
        A: The technicality you refer to is called sin and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4,20)

        You said: ‘Nothing- not his laws, not Jesus’ or any one’s blood, can make anything deserving of Him- except through His Grace (Rahma).’
        A: But his grace works through faith. Faith in what? Abraham’s son was going to be sacrificed to God, but God provided a ram that took his place (sound familiar?). God covered Adams shame by killing a lamb to cover his nakedness. A lambs blood was shed to save the Israelites in Egypt during the last plague. What was the point of the day of atonement and the temple sacrifices? What replaced them? What is the New Covenant that Jeremiah spoke of (31:31)?

        You said: “If by Saviour, you mean the Holy Prophet, Jesus Christ, alayhis salam, Muslims and everyone else need to believe in him, just as they need to believe in the Seal of the Prophets, the Best of Creation, Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa salam.”
        A: You need to believe in him as the messiah and saviour. How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? (John 1:29). He is the (what) of God? Think about it.

  86. mrkiller says:

    ” A tiny disputed passage in a book is very different to a large scale historical event such as the public trial and execution of a major world figure ”

    the first thing to ask is why didn’t the jews grab jesus, take him out of the city and stone him to death? if they are able to turns crowds against him in 2 days, are able to debate with him in the temple, are able to PICK UP stones to stone him (jesus RAN away), are able to MONITOR him via jewish policing , why the hell did they want pilate to do thier dirty job for them? they had ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES TO DESTROY him, ENOUGH! what is funny is that when they send out the jewish police to jesus, the police don’t want to kill jesus because jesus’ SPEECH saves jesus. but i believe that is an invention by the liar called john.
    whoever was writing the gospels was also rewriting history. did you ever ask where matthew picked up his claim that the jews told the romans to spread the story that the deciples stole the body? so according to your nt jews made up history.but where did matthew pull this from? why didn’t matthew TELL us which roman record /jewish record he pulled this claim from? have you ever contrasted historical pilate with gospel pilate? if christians invented history in the fake petere letters, the fake mary gospel, the fake paul letters, the fake james gospels , THE FAKE PILATE gospels , the fake letter forged by a christian who claimed that he was 1st hand WITNESS to jesus’ murder, how MUCH inventions were circulating in EARLY 1ST CENTURY galilee? NO SCHOLAR TODAY BELIEVES that the birth narratives are historical , but rather created out of old testament.

  87. mrkiller says:

    12 And having gone forth they were preaching that men might reform, 13 and many demons they were casting out, and they were anointing with oil many infirm, and they were healing them.

    what did they ask THEM TO believe before they performed their task on the people? the crucifiction wasn’t EVEN KNOWN to these deciples @ that time. WHAT They telling the people to believe in? blood of a god? don’t bull s hit us

  88. mrkiller says:

    oh right, i just remembered something.

    What were the disciples’ response to jeesus prediction of his
    crucifixion? They have no clue. They argue against him. They deny that such a terrible thing would ever happen.

    i wrote

    12 And having gone forth they were preaching that men might reform, 13 and many demons they were casting out, and they were anointing with oil many infirm, and they were healing them.

    what did they ask THEM TO believe before they performed their task on the people? the crucifiction wasn’t EVEN KNOWN to these deciples @ that time. WHAT They telling the people to believe in? blood of a god? don’t bull s hit us

    bull wrote:

    The same means of salvation that has always existed; repent and ask Gods forgiveness by faith through his blood atonement (in which ever covenant you are in). Also, baptism is symbolic of having sins washed away through the death and resurrection of Christ. (Romans 6:3-4).

    now you see how his response did not even ADDRESS :

    Let me ask you this: When Jesus sent out the Twelve to tell people to repent (Mark 6:12), what was the means of salvation?

    SEE?

  89. mrkiller says:

    i thought maybe ibn anwar would be interested in the following
    :

    paul a williams wrote:
    I just came across this beautifully written piece on a non-Muslim website, which I think is profoundly true:

    Islam has no concept of Original Sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed in the garden, and God forgave them. It costs God nothing to forgive us. This concept is found within the Bible, in Psalm 51:

    O Lord, open my lips,
    That my mouth may declare Your praise.
    For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
    You are not pleased with burnt offering.
    The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
    According to Islam, we are not born dirty and sinful, we are not told that every inclination of our heart is always toward evil. We are all born with a moral compass, called the fitrah, which is our natural inclination to seek God. That inclination can be overridden, or conditioned, or warped, but it is always there and if we stop fighting it and follow it, if we submit to the will of God we are forgiven. That is the very heart of Islam: submission to the will of God.

    This is also one of the reasons that Muslims cannot accept the Christian doctrine of God sacrificing Himself to Himself on the cross. God doesn’t need blood and death to forgive sin. God will simply forgive sin if you confess it to him, repent, and change your life. We see that in the Bible also, but it somehow became overshadowed by blood sacrifice.

    This seemingly minor point has a major impact on the underlying assumptions of Islam. We are not perpetually unworthy worms before God. We have the tools and the guidance and the example to lead holy lives.

  90. mrkiller says:

    isn’t it funny that they have to recall brutal murder done to thier god in order to get a ‘spiritual buzz’? by their logic , why not recall about that little baby which was burnt to death? surely witnessing a brutal murder has greater psychological affects then reading about one crucifixion, one which was changed again and again by the christian fraudsters.
    jews saw their brothers get crucified all the time.

    they read a text and then have to imagine crucifixion in thier sinful christian minds. they got to eat blood and flesh and need a filling by a holy ghost god, yet they continue to sin. they continue to go to church and look at sexy christian girlies . there is a reason why god told us to lover our gazes and fight the desires of the heart. christians think they’re so holy that they can gaze at the sexy christian girls ,especially those which show their clevage. the holy ghost don’t reside between christian girls clevage. nothing your god did could save you from sin, you still SIN and continue to sin. on the otherhand WORkS (lowering gaze) combined with good heart DOES saVE from sin.like noah, building a boat would be works of OBEDIANCE.it was noah’s animals blood which saved him , it was noah’s OBEDIANCE which god loved. He saved him from destruction.

  91. The Bull says:

    You said: “I have also illustrated that the changes made in the manuscript evidence do have significant impact on Christian belief. For example, many KJV-only Christians still use 1 Timothy 3:16 as evidence of God’s alleged incarnation.”
    A: I believe that statement is false because God’s incarnation is not dependent upon one verse in the bible. In all texts, Alexandrian or not, Jesus is still identified as God who became a man (e.g. John 1:1-2). That is irrefutable. The verse you have cited (used in modern translations) does not negate or disagree with the incarnation anyway. In any case you don’t believe what Paul wrote anyway! He states elsewhere we are to have faith in Jesus, believe he is our Lord and Saviour; things that should only be attributed to God.
    Matthew 28:19 states the baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    Your position can only be that the N.T. is a lie. How can you accept the miracles, teaching and virgin birth and yet disbelieve the rest?! You believe the virgin birth? This shows the possibility of Christ being more than a man. He is clearly greater than any other prophet for this reason alone.

    You said: “You have yourself conceded that the story of Jairus has mistakes in it, albeit you said they were “genuine mistakes” and not purposefully fashioned the way they appear today.”
    A: I did not concede. I said you have a point and added ‘IF it was a mistake’. I also offered an alternative explanation.

    You said: “thus sought and did change the narrative so as to increase the Christological value in the story (Jarius daughter). The modification/alteration/amendment is clearly theological in nature.”
    A: In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is also the crucified Son of God. In both accounts (Matthew and Mark) she was raised from the dead. I therefore don’t see any major Christological discrepancies.

    Getting back to Mark 1:1-3 (2): My KJV reads ‘in the prophets’, but the NIV reads ‘prophet Isaiah’. What you are saying is that the author (NIV) attributed a verse in Malachi to Isaiah and therefore is incorrect.
    I didn’t see that earlier because I use the KJV.
    Really the matter is inconsequential, like just about all of your material. It’s nit picking. Whatever occurred here it is obviously an honest mistake, whether it be from the original source (highly unlikely), or a copyist. It alters absolutely nothing about the message of the NT.

    You said: “Today we know that it is historically untenable that there was a worldwide census that covered the whole Roman empire at one time under Augustus.”
    Then you said (In another post, after the evidence was produced):
    “Nowhere does it mention when (the census) this took place.”
    A: Can you see how slippery you are? (no offense). You have actually contradicted yourself here. When faced with the fact that the census did take place, you cleverly change tack by now saying we don’t know when!?

    You said: “Do you realise that you’re arguing from silence? Once again like a good little evangelist you come with the presumption that the Bible is THE record that everyone should turn to as the ultimate historical criteria. There is a reason why Ishmael is not mentioned much in the annals of the OT/Tanakh.”
    A: That’s right. I am arguing from silence. The silence proves that there is no evidence for Ishmael having a bona fide covenant with God through to Muhammad. You do the same thing with the crucifixion except we have the Gospels, O.T., Tacitus, Talmud, Josephus and Lucian that support the crucifixion.

    I have shown that any ‘text differences’ do not affect doctrine when considering the entirety of the N.T.
    It is very unlikely the bible has been ‘fudged’ because there is simply no evidence of it and it is logically absurd for this reason: any ‘fudged’ material would have been rejected when compared to the true source already in wide circulation. Also if the original content were untrue then it would have had a wide rejection as eyewitnesses and the general populace refute the new ‘history’.
    I’ll give you a project. Invent the Messiah of the Old Testament and get people to follow him now. Create a whole lot of stories and document them for fact. You will get nowhere.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said:
      “A: I believe that statement is false because God’s incarnation is not dependent upon one verse in the bible. In all texts, Alexandrian or not, Jesus is still identified as God who became a man (e.g. John 1:1-2). That is irrefutable. The verse you have cited (used in modern translations) does not negate or disagree with the incarnation anyway. In any case you don’t believe what Paul wrote anyway! He states elsewhere we are to have faith in Jesus, believe he is our Lord and Saviour; things that should only be attributed to God.
      Matthew 28:19 states the baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
      Your position can only be that the N.T. is a lie. How can you accept the miracles, teaching and virgin birth and yet disbelieve the rest?! You believe the virgin birth? This shows the possibility of Christ being more than a man. He is clearly greater than any other prophet for this reason alone.”

      My reply:
      With all due respect you must be the slowest Christian I have spoken to in years. Your argument which is typical of an evangelist goes that, “oh, it’s okay that there are changes in the New Testament. The core beliefs of Christianity are still intact when we look at other verified material in the NT.” I have already refuted this faulty argument! Did I not ask you not to repeat yourself? I have already stated several times that because we have numerous blatant and theologically motivated changes in the New Testament that we can detect by carefully inspecting the manuscripts this opens for the good possibility that modification of the stories that the anonymous authors heard also took place. This modification process can be seen without the backing of manuscript texts simply be examining the material from one gospel to the next. The epologue in John has its roots in Philo’s writings and because we can’t identify who the author of the fourt gospel is we cannot possibily trace it back to Jesus or his disciples. It is clear that what is found in the first chapter are the musings of someone who wanted to elevate Jesus to a position that finds little to no support in the earliest strata or layer of tradition. But even if I were to concede the passage that does not mean that it proves God incarnated as man. Rather it was the word of God which is God’s creative ability to create(Genesis 1:3)described as ‘theos’(in an adjectival sense) that became flesh. The logos was something abstract that took physical shape and form when God decreed it to be so. For example, if you have an architect and he decides to build a structure he has the plans in his head at the beginning. That plan in his head is the LOGOS for the structure at which point it is still abstract in nature. When the architect decides to build it he hires contractors to build it for him at which point the logos which was immaterial before becomes something physical i.e. flesh. Either way, you lose.
      You said:
      He states elsewhere we are to have faith in Jesus, believe he is our Lord and Saviour; things that should only be attributed to God.
      My reply:
      Well, Paul was never an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry and his alleged conversion on the Damascus road is very suspect. I have already dealt with this in full here http://unveilingchristianity.w.....-polycarp/. But even if I were to agree that Paul’s testimony regarding Jesus is acceptable does that mean that he believed that Jesus was God, the creator of the universe? I’d like you to pull Philippians and Colossians on that and you’ll see the insufficiency of the simplistic Christian position. In any case Paul said, “For to us there is but ONE GOD, the Father and one mediator between God and man, THE MAN Jesus Christ.”. Notice that the emphasis on manhood. At this point if the hypostatic union was true he should have said THE GOD MAN Jesus Christ which he never did.

      You said:
      Matthew 28:19 states the baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
      Have I not already addressed this? Let’s produce my article on this here:
      Matthew 28:19 is not original and is an interpolation according to Biblical scholars

      by Ibn Anwar

      I’m sure many of you have come across avid Trinitarians who use this verse time and again to prove the Trinity. However, even if one were to accept the verse as true and authentic for the sake of argumet it does not in any way prove the Trinity doctrine. Mr. James Patrick Holding from tektonics.org in his response to Pastor A. Ploughman(who wrote on the issue)admits:

      “I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense as it theoretically could support any view — modalism, even tritheism, could be permitted from this verse, for it only lists the members of the Triune Godhead with absolutely no explanation as to their exact relationship. Verse 18 would indicate that the Father is in a functionally superior relationship to the Son, but that says nothing about an ontological relationship; though one may justly argue that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that all three would be named together if there were not an ontological equality, lest God’s glory somehow be compromised.”

      The volumnuous book What Did Jesus Really Say? provides a good explanation for the verse that does away with the Trinitarian argument that because the verse uses the word name in the singular form to describe three names this means that the three are one like 1 John 5:7. Unfortunately(for Trinitarians), as how What Did Jesus Really Say has illustrated such an argument does not hold much weight:

      “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
      If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to “Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union,” does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity. [1]

      According to the New Testament scholar J.B. Philips in his Translation of the New Testament into Modern English:

      “The modern view is that Mark’s Gospel came first, and that both Matthew and Luke based theirs on Mark and other collections of material about Jesus.” [2]

      This view is shared by numerous other Biblical scholars. One would think that if the author of Matthew(whoever he was) based his writings on Mark the Trinitarian formula would be seen in the latter. The truth is of course this so called baptismal formula is never to be found again anywhere in the New Testament after Matthew 28:19. The fact that Mark, Luke and John never mentions it is sufficient reason to place the verse under suspicion.

      Krister Stendahl Ph.D, Theol.D. who’s Assoc. Professor of New Testament Studies at Harvard University in his commentary of Matthew writes:

      “1 19. This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.’s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula & describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac 2:38, 8:16, etc.). Neither Mt. nor any of the other synoptics describes Jesus as practising baptism;…” [3] (emphasis added)

      The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia writes:

      “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.” [4]

      The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary says:

      “…the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 (perhaps a development from the simpler formula reflected in Acts 2:38; 8:16; and elsewhere…” [5]

      In a footnote to the verse in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible we read:

      “It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing “in the name of Jesus”, Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same” [6]

      In The Five Gospels we read:

      “Teach and Baptize. The great commission in Matt 22:18-20 has its counterpart in Luke 24:47-48 and Acts 1:8(both Luke and Acts were written by the same author). In John 20:22-23, Jesus bestows the holy spirit on the disciples and confirms their authority to forgive and bind sins. These commissions have little in common, which indicates that they have been created by the individual evangelists to express their conception of the future of the Jesus movement. As a consequence, they cannot be traced back to Jesus.

      The commission in Matthew is expressed in Matthew’s language and reflects the evangelist’s idea of the world mission of the church. Jesus probably had no idea of launching a world mission and certainly was not an institution builder. The three parts of the commission-make disciples, baptize and teach- constitute the program adopted by the infant movemen, but do not reflect direct instructions from Jesus.

      These commissions do not rest on old tradition, as their variety and divergence show. They are framed in language characteristic of the individual evangelists and express their views of how the mission of the infant church is to be understood.” [7] (emphasis added)

      Finally, we read in The Gospels and Jesus :

      “The command to the disciples to baptize ‘in the name of’ the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ‘ is quite without parallel in the New Testament. Elsewhere baptism is spoken of as being in or through the name of Jesus( for example, see Acts 2:38, 10:48; Rom 6:3, 1 Cor 1:13,15 and 6:11) Matthew’s use of the threefold name in baptism is a later development which quickly became the standard Christian formulation.” [8] (emphasis added)

      Out the window goes yet another Biblical verse! Numerous other scholars have also suggested that this verse be discarded from being attributed to the lips of Jesus. However, the scholars that have thus far been quoted sufficiently satisfy our point.

      Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (Qur’an, 2:79)

      References:

      [1] Misha’al ibn Abdullah. What Did Jesus Really Say?(1996). Islamic Assembly of North America. p. 26

      [2]http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN201BOOKIntros.htm#matthew

      [3] Stendahl, Krister. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, p. 798

      [4] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 2637

      [5] The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary(1996). pp. 1179

      [6] The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, p. 64

      [7] Funk, Robert W. , Hoover, Roy W. , and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels, p. 270

      [8] Graham N. Stanton. The Gospels and Jesus(1989). New York: Oxford University Press. p.76

      You said:
      Your position can only be that the N.T. is a lie. How can you accept the miracles, teaching and virgin birth and yet disbelieve the rest?! You believe the virgin birth? This shows the possibility of Christ being more than a man. He is clearly greater than any other prophet for this reason alone.

      My reply:
      The miracles that Jesus performed made him no more divine than Moses who also did equally amazing feats of miracles. Jesus revived the dead, that is, those who once were once living. A find a similar example in modern times in the resuscitation of someone whose heart stops through CPR and the defibrillator. This however does not diminish the value of Jesus’ revival stories. But look at Moses. The story goes that he had a stick and he turned it into a serpent. That is the action of changing an inanimate object that has no life to begin with into an entirely new species. Which is greater? Your line of argument backfires The Bull as you have just seen. The miracles that Jesus performed came from God as Acts 2:22 clearly states just as Moses’ came from God too. What about the birth of Jesus? Well, uniqueness does not equal Godhood. You do realise that don’t you? Is it not within God’s power to create a human being without a father? The Qur’an answers this question before your ancestors were born:
      “Indeed the likeness of ‘Eesaa (Jesus) before Allaah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: “Be!” – and he was” (3:59)
      Jesus was without a father. Adam was without both a father and a mother. Who is greater? In the book of Hebrews we have someone who is much greater than Jesus.
      Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. (Hebrews 7:3)
      This Melchizedek character is without parents. Jesus at least had a mother and according to you his father is God. Melchizedek has no geneology. Jesus has two genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Melchizedek is no beginning of days or end of life. Jesus had a beginning in the house or manger(depending on which gospel you read) and an apparent death on the cross according to you. In comparison is he not greater than Jesus? Should he be worshipped as God? I don’t think so.

      You said:
      A: I did not concede. I said you have a point and added ‘IF it was a mistake’. I also offered an alternative explanation.

      My reply:
      you’re backtracking now. Your reply was, “You do have a point, I admit, but the miracle was that she was raised from the dead which both accounts agree on. If it was a mistake then I believe it to be a genuine one without conspiracy.” Exactly, I do have a point. How many mistakes are you willing to concede and describe them as genuine unintentional errors? How reliable are the authors if the mistakes persist throughout their writings? Can you not see that you’ve dug your own grave? Your alternative explanation has already been refuted. So there’s no use mentioning it unless you can refute the points I’ve made which you have failed over and over again.

      You said:

      A: In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is also the crucified Son of God. In both accounts (Matthew and Mark) she was raised from the dead. I therefore don’t see any major Christological discrepancies.

      My reply:
      The major Christological discrepancy is that in Mark Jesus looks ignorant but in Matthew he does not. The point of this excercise was to show that the authors liberally changed stories to propel their theological beliefs. If this is true and I have proven it to be so then every single narrative in the writings should be taken with a grain of salt. This is the point which you have yet to grasp. If Mark is correct then Matthew is wrong. If Matthew is wrong did God inspire him to write wrongly? If he intentionally modified the story which is clearly the case then did God inspire one who modified, that is, one who lies about Jesus? Can you not see the implications? Are you really that daft?

      You said:
      Getting back to Mark 1:1-3 (2): My KJV reads ‘in the prophets’, but the NIV reads ‘prophet Isaiah’. What you are saying is that the author (NIV) attributed a verse in Malachi to Isaiah and therefore is incorrect.
      I didn’t see that earlier because I use the KJV.
      Really the matter is inconsequential, like just about all of your material. It’s nit picking. Whatever occurred here it is obviously an honest mistake, whether it be from the original source (highly unlikely), or a copyist. It alters absolutely nothing about the message of the NT.

      My reply:
      This isn’t nit picking The Bull****. This is called exposing the lies of Christianity. What does one make of an author who is said to be inspired by God making a clear mistake at the very beginning of his book which is supposed to contain truth? I have already stated this and yet you repeat the same nonsense. I would ask you to stop wasting my time and everybody elses. Several of my friends are getting tired of your incessant repetition. It is tedious and you’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself than you already have.

      You said:
      A: Can you see how slippery you are? (no offense). You have actually contradicted yourself here. When faced with the fact that the census did take place, you cleverly change tack by now saying we don’t know when!?

      My reply:
      My God..you really are a nitwit. The census that is mentioned in Luke is supposed to cover the WHOLE WORLD. But I was very kind as to give the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the whole world refers to the whole Roman empire. The only census that took place covered ONE place i.e. Judea. This is not the whole Roman empire. Do you understand that much? None of the plagiarised material that you provided identifies which census took place when as such they are inconsequential to what is found in Luke. Can you comprehend that? Let’s reproduce what I wrote so the readers can see how nonsensical you’re being.
      What about the Cencus mentioned in Luke? You have plagiarised all of what you’ve copied and pasted from formerthings.com lol. This gets more sad all the time tsk tsk. Let’s have a look at this issue further then.Formerthings cites Tacitus’ Annals as proof for what is mentioned in Luke. The text from the Annals read as follows in the original Latin:
      “opes publicae continebantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones. quae cuncta sua manu perscripserat Augustus addideratque consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu an per invidiam.”
      Nowhere does it mention when this took place. In fact, none of the sources used by formethings.com identify the census to Jesus’ time. But it is true that there was a census of Judea in 6 CE as mentioned by Josephus, however this census did not include Galilee and it was certainly not of the entire Roman empire. Geoffrey Lampe has already discussed this in the quotation given which I will reproduce once more:
      “In making this point Lk. seems to have made use of historical data with which he was imperfectly acquainted. A census was helf about A.D. 6, when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Coponius procurator of Judaea (Jos. A.t XV!!, xiii, 5 ; XVIII, i, I). This is referred to in Ac. 5:37, and Lk. was probably uncertain of its date and ignored its inconsistency involved here in associating it with the reign of Herod. A census ordered by Augustus could scarcely have taken place in Herod’s dominions without provoking disturbances, and would be unlikely to be unnoticed by Josephus. Lk.’s allusion to this as the ‘ first enrollment ‘ suggests that he is thinking of the census which, as the first to be held under the Roman administration of Judaea, caused the revolt of Judas of Galilee. There is evidence for the taking of a census every fourteen years in Egypt, the series possibly going back to A.D. 6; but there is no sure evidence for the extension of this system to other parts of the Empire at so early a date, and no mention is made by josephus of regular enrolments. On the evidence of Strabo, combined with two inscriptions, the lapis Venetus and the very fragmentary lapis Tiburinus, it has been argued that Quirinius was in Syria with an extraordinary legatine commission for military operations in Cilicia between 10 and 7 B.C., or possibly as holding a first governorship of the province from 3 to 2 B.C. If the former possibility were established, the historical problem would still not be completely solved; if the latter, the inconsistency with a dating in Herod’s reign still stands. Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv, 19) dates the birth of Jesus in the governorship over Syria of Saturninus (9 to 6 B.C.), which may well be correct.”

      The passage from Josephus that is cited, that is, Antiquities 18.1-2 says that Judaea had been annexed to Syria and Quirinius took a census of their property and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. As pointed out by Dr. L. Michael White this occured in the “37th year after caesar [Augustus] defeated Antony at Actium.” as mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities 18.26. The Battle of Actium itself had taken place in 31 BCE. White discusses this issue at length:
      “As long as Herd or one of his heirs was on the throne of Judea as client-king appointed by the emperor, there was no reason to conduct a census. The king alone was responsible for the taxes owed to Rome; how they were collected did not concern the emperor. In 6 CE, after the removal of Archelaus, Quirinius would have only been commissioned to census Judea (not the Galilee), since only Judea had been brought under his jurisdiction. The Galilee remained a Jewish client-kingdom under Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, until 37 CE. Antipas is the other “Herod” mentioned in the Gospels, who was responsible for the death of John the Baptist, and before whom Jesus was also tried, at least according to Luke. In this last incident (Luke 23:6), the Lukan author shows a clear awareness of jurisdictional prerogatives of the Herodian client-king of the Galilee over against the Roman governor of Judea. There is no evidence from other Roman provinces to suggest that residents of one area would be required to return to their native home in another province in order to register for a tax census.” (White, L.M. (2010). Scripting Jesus. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 238-239)
      The People’s New Testament says:
      ““Luke thus sets the story of Jesus in the context of political struggle, taxation, and the imperial and religious claims of Rome (Acts 26:26!). Luke’s main point is clearly theological, but the details of his historical presentation are problematic. If Jesus was born in the days of Herod, the census or registration was at least ten years later, it was not of all the world but of Judea, and it was not Roman practice to have people return to their native towns to register. Luke, writing eighty or ninety years after the events he narrates, apparently did not have accurate historical information. The claim he makes is not dependent on the accuracy of historical detail…”(Boring, M. E., & Craddock, F. B. (2010). The People’s New Testament. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 181)

      Are there good reasons to believe Quirinius became governor of Syria twice? No, there is none at all as White says:
      It has sometimes been argued that there was an earlier census of Judea or that of Quirinius might have served as governor of Syria more than once. Neither of these claims has any historical merit. On the first, there was no need for a census of Judea so long as Herod or one of his sons was on the throne. Augustus’ edict only applied to provinces governed directly by Rome, not client-kingdoms. On the second, the names of the governors of Roman Syria are now nearly complete between the years 23 BCE and 17 CE. They are as follows:
      23-13 BCE M. Agrippa
      13-11 BCE ?
      CA. 10 BCE M. Titus
      9-6 BCE S. Sentius Saturninus
      6-4 BCE (? later) P. Quintilius Varus
      4-2 BCE ?
      2/1 BCE-4 CE Gaius Caesar
      4-5 CE L. Vousius Saturninus
      6/7 CE P. Sulpicious Quirinius
      12-17 CE Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus

      During this entire period of forty years, the name of the governor is not known in only two intervals totaling four years, as shown above. In both cases, however, it is impossible for Quirinius to have been the “unnamed” governor, since his appointments and whereabouts are known to be elsewhere. In the period 13-11 BCE, he was serving and consul in Rome, and in the period 4-2 BCE, he was serving as governor of Pamphylia-Galatia and leading the compaign against the Homanadenses, for which he won a “triumph” in Rome. Thus, Quirinius cannot have held an earlier governorship of Syria.” (Ibid. pp. 237-238)
      Other scholars who have discussed this issue problem and admit to it as such include B. Riecke, Fitzmyer and D. Potter.

      You said:
      A: That’s right. I am arguing from silence. The silence proves that there is no evidence for Ishmael having a bona fide covenant with God through to Muhammad. You do the same thing with the crucifixion except we have the Gospels, O.T., Tacitus, Talmud, Josephus and Lucian that support the crucifixion.

      My reply:
      You are tiresome The Bull****. This is what I wrote:
      Do you realise that you’re arguing from silence? Once again like a good little evangelist you come with the presumption that the Bible is THE record that everyone should turn to as the ultimate historical criteria. There is a reason why Ishmael is not mentioned much in the annals of the OT/Tanakh. It is clear that the descendants of Isaac were nationalists and wanted their nation to supercede all others. Every other nation are scorned upon and portrayed as barbarian infidels deserving of total decimation e.g. Numbers 31. Allow me to make this point clearer by showing you an example of a story carefully though not perfectly fashioned to blemish and malign an opposing nation:
      “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      (Genesis 9:18-25, KJV)

      Before I proceed further I would like to state for the record that Muslims are utterly shocked and offended that the Bible portrays great messengers of God as low lives like drunkards.

      Coming to the story… Notice how the story says Ham THE FATHER of Canaan. This is rather interesting. Seems like it’s trying to prove or lead to something.

      In summary, Noah became drunk and dropped naked in his tent. Ham, Noah’s second son found him in that state and told his brothers about it. According to many Biblical experts Ham didn’t just tell his brothers about it, he also laughed at his father’s state. This is considered as an offense to Noah and is the reason why Noah made the curse. The two other sons Shem and Japheth were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him without looking. When Noah gained consciousness, he knew what Ham did and started cursing,”And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

      Did you catch the joke?

      Noah had 3 sons : Shem, Ham and Japheth.

      Ham had 4 sons(Genesis 10:6) : Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

      When the narration is analysed, a question arises,”Who was responsible for looking at Noah’s nakedness?” The answer is Ham. Christians argue that the action of Ham was a sin, hence the curse. For the sake of argument, we agree. Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No, Canaan an innocent little child was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who’s responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Further more, why was Canaan out of 4 siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness? Can you imagine something like that happening today? I love analogies, so let’s have one:

      James has four children. He committed murder. He is apprehended, brought to court and is found guilty. The judge decided that the punishment is the “injection” i.e. death. However, the injection is given to his youngest son and he in turn is released without cost. Once again, is this justice or madness?

      It is evident that this story has a subliminal message in it made for propaganda. It aims at teaching the Israelites that their fight against the strong Canaanite nation is one that is just since it was ordained that they’re nothing but slaves from the very beginning.

      In addition, how is this strange tale reconciled in light of the following:

      “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

      I also wrote in the same reply the following explanation:
      The story of Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis 15 to 17 is not genuine. A careful examination of the sequence of events and the words used will show that whoever handled the texts modified it to undermine Ishmael and promote Isaac and his progeny. Jeremiah 8:8 testifies that the ‘sofrim’ or scribes(the first place they are mentioned in the Bible/s) corrupted God’s word with their pen. In Genesis 15:2-3 Abram beseeches God and complains that Eliezer will become the heir to his house rather than his own offspring saying, “Behold you have not given me offspring.” Immediately, he is assured in verse four that Eliezer will not be his heir, but rather his own son shall be his heir. The angel then revealed a sign that will indicate that this son is the answer to Abram’s prayer in verse five whereby it is promised that through Ishmael his descendants will be countless like the stars. In the next chapter we come to know that Hagar becomes the legitimate wife of Abram and not much later she conceives! Note that this follows immediately after the promise of an heir by God through the angel. In Gen. 16:11 it says that the angel himself descends to Hagar and says, “Behold you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael.” Just before this the angel informs her in verse ten that her line of progeny will be so many in multitude that they can’t be numbered. This sign of the promised heir(first in chapter 15) is repeated three times in Ishmael’s case(Gen. 16:10, 17:6 and 17:20). Is it mere coincidence that the angel only appears to Hagar and never to Sarah? Is it mere coincidence that the firstborn is named by God Himself as Ishmael which incidentally means GOD HEARD? Heard what? Follow the sequence of events from Genesis 15 right into 16 and you will be able to see that the promise was fulfilled with the conception of Ishmael through Hagar. This point is solidified further by virtue of the fact that Abraham stopped asking God to send him an heir after Ishmael’s conception. The manipulation takes place after this where Isaac is mysteriously made into the heir and is described as “the only son” which is anachronistic in view of the fact that Ishmael was also his son and had been around for several years prior to Isaac’s conception. The expression “thy only son” introduced later into the narrative gives away the lie that crept into it at the hands of the scribes. There is no rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael. Both were accepted by God and both were blessed. Ishmael was received into the covenant as he bore its sign i.e. the circumcision. He was not excluded from it. No doubt that the prophets of God have almost all descended from Isaac’s line, but notice that God promises Ishmael a great nation. When did this come about? This came about in the person of Muhammad s.a.w. who is a direct descendant of the monotheist Ishmael. The blessing that Isaac’s line had was taken away from them due to their incessant wrongdoing and unrighteousness(Deuteronomy 31:26-29) turning God away from them. Jesus as a matter of fact rebuked them and said, “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruit.”(Matthew 21:43). There are several important things to take into consideration here. The kingdom of God is to be taken away from them(Isaac’s children) and given to another NATION(ethnei). You cannot say that this refers to the gentile believers of Christianity since the word is very specific namely, ethnei from which you get the word ethnic. The word refers to a particular race or ethnicity which can only mean the Arabs when all the facts are collated. It also mentions the idea of ‘producing fruits’ which so happens to be synonymous with the expression used in the promise for Ishmael i.e. ‘to bear fruit’ or ‘parah’ in Hebrew. Who were the kings in Ishmael’s line that were promised to him by God in Genesis 17:6? They are the Arab kings/rulers that came to power with the arrival of Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Prior to Muhammad s.a.w. and the caliphs of Islam the Arabs were for all intents and purposes a non-entity. It was Islam that propelled them to heights of greatness. Thus the Jewish Rabbinical authorities recognise this and says:
      “We see from the prophecy in this verse that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th century C.E.]…. Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until finally the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world.” (Rabbi Nosson Scherman. The Chumash(1998). Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd. p. 76)

      You said:
      I have shown that any ‘text differences’ do not affect doctrine when considering the entirety of the N.T.
      It is very unlikely the bible has been ‘fudged’ because there is simply no evidence of it and it is logically absurd for this reason: any ‘fudged’ material would have been rejected when compared to the true source already in wide circulation. Also if the original content were untrue then it would have had a wide rejection as eyewitnesses and the general populace refute the new ‘history’.

      My reply:
      What kind of a broken record are you??? I have already refuted this argument several times! I have already established that changes took place liberally in the first century in the writings of the anonymous authors. i have also proven that changes can take place in a society where intellectuals thrive and literacy rates are high neither of which existed in the first century which paves way for the probability of modification and invention of many things. I have already shown that in the earliest layers of tradition much of the embellished and polished material that are found in the canonical gospels are not supported. For the last time please stop repeating yourself.

      You said:
      I’ll give you a project. Invent the Messiah of the Old Testament and get people to follow him now. Create a whole lot of stories and document them for fact. You will get nowhere.

      My reply:
      Haven’t you heard of the Mormons? Is their version of Jesus Christ acceptable to you? They have millions of followers! This stupid project that you have suggested have gone on for centuries. Please make sensible arguments and avoid exposing your silliness. It’s already apparent. You don’t have to advertise it every time you decide to comment on this site.

  92. abu ismail jaafar says:

    Of course his laws have something to do with his holiness and perfection. They demonstrate his character. He does apply these laws to himself. For example, it is in his nature to never steal or bear false witness.-

    He never steals because everything is His, not because His law applies to Him. He never bears false witness, because He is the Truth, not that He is complying to a law. He is Al-Ghani, the Independent. He does what He does as He wills, not because He is bound by His law. If He is bound by His law, that means that the law is greater than Him. You did not respond to my point about the Sabbath. Prophet Jesus was supposed to have said that man is not made for the Sabbath. Do you believe then that the Sabbath applies to God? Does God rest? (la ta khudhuhu sinatun wa la naum, slumber does not seize Him, nor does sleep)Your bible says that circumcision is an eternal covenant, yet why is it that only one party in the covenant got circumcised? Well, of course. Circumcision does not apply to Him. But it should if I follow your reasoning.

    If you say that some laws apply to Him, and some don’t, then it is like admitting that such laws do not at all reflect His Glory and Perfection. His laws reflect His Glory to the measure that it benefits His creation as He wills through them, not that it is a yardstick to measure Him. His Glory and Perfection cannot be measured, nor equaled, even if everything in the universe is sacrificed. He can create an infinite number of universes, each one infinitely greater than ours, yet all combined will still be ashamed to stand in front of Him except as He wills. and it is necessary that He use blood for that.

    You said: “Our God is too merciful to send anyone to hell on a technicality.”
    A: The technicality you refer to is called sin and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4,20)

    And God gives life and death to anyone He pleases, with or without blood.

    You said: ‘Nothing- not his laws, not Jesus’ or any one’s blood, can make anything deserving of Him- except through His Grace (Rahma).’
    A: But his grace works through faith. Faith in what? Abraham’s son was going to be sacrificed to God, but God provided a ram that took his place (sound familiar?). God covered Adams shame by killing a lamb to cover his nakedness. A lambs blood was shed to save the Israelites in Egypt during the last plague. What was the point of the day of atonement and the temple sacrifices? What replaced them? What is the New Covenant that Jeremiah spoke of (31:31)?

    Your contention has been answered many times by bro. Ibn Anwar. That He willed animal blood as a means for His Grace to work does not remove the fact that He may choose NOT to use blood as a means to forgive. Therefore, it is NOT necessary. Can He not use other means to forgive? Yes, He can. Bro. Ibn Anwar has provided you with numerous references from your bible that people have been forgiven without blood sacrifice.

    You said: “If by Saviour, you mean the Holy Prophet, Jesus Christ, alayhis salam, Muslims and everyone else need to believe in him, just as they need to believe in the Seal of the Prophets, the Best of Creation, Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa salam.”
    A: You need to believe in him as the messiah and saviour. How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? (John 1:29). He is the (what) of God? Think about it.

    That is if we suppose that the anonymous author of the book you cited was telling the truth about Jesus being the (whatever) of God in that verse.

    • abu ismail jaafar says:

      *….and it is necessary that He use blood for that.*

      should be “*….and it is NOT necessary that He use blood for that.*

      • The Bull says:

        RE: Sabbath day.
        God rested on the sabbath day during creation.

        Psalm 49:7-9: No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him. The ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough that he should live on forever and not see decay.

        No payment is ever enough….except the perfect and sinless one…the Savior and Redeemer….who alone payed the ranson price for Gods infinite justice.

        Jesus is called the LAMB of God for a very specific reason….think about that.

      • abu ismail jaafar says:

        RE: Sabbath day.
        God rested on the sabbath day during creation.

        Astaghfirullah. So God gets tired then. Please do not include us Muslims in your blasphemy. So much of your talk for God’s glory. Far be it from Him to require rest. Slumber seizes Him not, neither does Sleep (Qur’an, 2:255). While man was not made for the Sabbath according to the bible, God is not exempted from it?

        Besides, it’s not just about the Sabbath. It’s about God’s Glory being measured by His laws. The Sabbath is just one example of how absurd it is to say that the law He supposedly gave to a particular group of people in a particular time for a particular reason is the end-all and be-all of God’s Glory and Holiness. Surely, He can give more difficult laws. Some of His creation are doing something more tremendous than say, complying to the Sabbath (such as angels prostrating and never lifting their face up since the day of their creation according to Islam, or angels praising Him ceaselessly according to the bible and the Qur’an), yet even these multiplied a billion times in difficulty, in stringency, will not be enough for His Glory. Nothing ever will be. Not blood, in itself and by itself, whether the one who shed it is sinless or not. Conversely, He could give easier laws, if He pleases, and it would not at all reflect negatively on His Holiness. The very idea of ‘falling short of His glory’ is blasphemous, as pointed out by Ibn Anwar. We never were and never will be deserving of His Glory, except when He covers us with His Mercy, in whatever manner He pleases.

        Psalm 49:7-9: No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him. The ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough that he should live on forever and not see decay.

        So God is holding our lives hostage?

        No payment is ever enough….except the perfect and sinless one…the Savior and Redeemer….who alone payed the ranson price for Gods infinite justice.

        Jesus is called the LAMB of God for a very specific reason….think about that.

        God then makes a payment to Himself for something which He holds ransom?

  93. mrkiller says:

    “Of course his laws have something to do with his holiness and perfection. They demonstrate his character. He does apply these laws to himself. For example, it is in his nature to never steal or bear false witness.”

    “A: The technicality you refer to is called sin and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4,20)”

    explain something hear. is blood a law or is self saccrifce/abuse/torcher a law? is god killing himself a law? what does god giving his life to himself mean exactly? god who created life does not have death as his antithesis. He does not need to defeat death. Death is already under his control. God does not need to die to defeat death. He is living, the giver of life and the taker of life. Death is always subservient to God.

  94. mrkiller says:

    “God has therefore destroyed the power of death over us by takings its penalty instead of us.”

    what are you talking about? people came back to life BEFORE jesus existed. its freakin mentioned in hebrew, greek, ancient egyptian documents. and how did god take the penalty? he foolishly allowed death to control him only for a fraction of a second. actually how the hell is going for walkies in hell fraction of a second, your god didn’t even die lol, he simply transfered himself in another location. do you see the fraud in your religion? see, your god did not CEASE TO exist. you know completely disappear and not relocate anywhere. so you see fraud is christianity.

  95. mrkiller says:

    funny. if christian god had to defeat aids the only way he could do it by getting aids. in the same way, the only way he could defeat death is by getting it. why for 2000 years they have beautified and decorated this evil idea and sold it to many?

  96. The Bull says:

    Your perception of death needs some fine tuning. Death is primarily a separation. Physical death is separation of the soul/spirit from the body. Spiritual death is separation of ones soul/spirit from God (ouch). When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually and then some years later physically. See Genesis 2:17. Spiritual death can only be averted by being declared righteouss and holy in Gods presence (God can not have fellowship or union with darkness). Since all have sinned etc a spiritual death has occurred. It is only in being declared (or made) righteouss that we avert being separated from God (Hell). Since we cannot do this of ourselves, God has provided a means of ridding ourselves of our sins to make us holy. 1 Peter 2:24 tells us that Jesus bore our sins in his body so we wouldn’t have to. All we need do is Obey.

  97. mrkiller says:

    “Your perception of death needs some fine tuning. Death is primarily a separation. Physical death is separation of the soul/spirit from the body. Spiritual death is separation of ones soul/spirit from God (ouch).”

    so how does this sh it apply to the living God? are you seriously telling me that your god seperated himself from himself because the romans did lots of dirty deeds to his human flesh? was the rape of the flesh of the man god a TRIGGER for god in cosmic form to seperate himself from himself or was man responsible all the way? how did god spiritually seperate him self from himself? if he did then what the freakin hell was the point of him allowing his meat puppet to go through all that gibberish? there were many other ways.theology says that death could mean destruction of the body, ETERNAL SEPERATION of spirit from God in HELL. so how does THE GOD who is in CONTROL oF DEATH ,OWNS DEATH, CREATES DEATH, GIVES DEATH APPLY unto himself the gibberish u wrote? how did he ETERNALLY SEPERATE himself from himself? and if we eternally will be seperated because of sin, then does that mean we would suffer more than the trinitarian
    gods? your god had it easy or shall we say a walk in the park. throw your fraudy religion away.

  98. mrkiller says:

    what did jesus pay? wear a mask , take it off and beat it up .buy another mask , wear it then take it off then beat it up ad infinatum. so how does torchering your meat puppet pay anything? how does that mean that it is equivalent to an ETERNITY IN HELL? DON’T call it a punishment when you know you’re gonna get back to life and enjoy heaven with your father and spirit god and this was all preplanned from the begining so all members in the 3 gods enjoyed and complied with the plan ,unless christianity believes the 3 gods disagree with each other.

  99. mrkiller says:

    bull’s god must be made of ingredients and parts. how can you seperate something if it is not made of parts? tell me something bull, did your god relenquish his powers when he seperated himself from himself? was the cosmic ingredient of your god LITERALLY seperated? if so , then how many were left in trinity? 2 ?

  100. Nur-el-Masih Ben Haq says:

    You should stop blocking posts from me on this subject and others if you are confident of yourself!! Are you coward? If not why do you all keep attacking bull and block other posts supporting him? You should learn from Christian websites; they don’t operate cowardly like this!! If you are serious you should allow posts from other Christians. That is how it is done!!!

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      lol….Firstly, the Blog owner has the prerogative to approve or block any comment as he sees fit. Take it up with wordpress if you’ve got a problem with that. Secondly, there isn’t any Christian thus far backing up The Bull’s nonsense. You might want to read up on my articles on John Fraiser and see that he conveniently deleted my comments for fear of not being able to respond. I can understand how frustrated it is to see a fellow Christian getting refuted every time he types a sentence, but you shouldn’t work yourself up on it. After all, isn’t he helped by the holy spirit? Why should he need you or any other Christian when he has God Himself in him? lol…come on mate….be reasonable. You know that he hasn’t a leg to stand upon.

  101. The Bull says:

    Hi abu ismail jaafar (teal’c)

    You said: ‘So God gets tired then. Please do not include us Muslims in your blasphemy. So much of your talk for God’s glory. Far be it from Him to require rest. Slumber seizes Him not, neither does Sleep (Qur’an, 2:255). While man was not made for the Sabbath according to the bible, God is not exempted from it?’
    A: Who mentioned sleep? Does ‘rest’ equal ‘sleep’; of course not. Did God get tired? Does it say that? You assume too much. Getting back to the original point, his commandments do reflect his character and he will not allow them to be compromised (without retribution) because of his righteousness and majesty. Remember, we are made in his image and likeness. For this reason, the spiritual and moral laws he adheres to are going to be important for us too.

    You said: “Besides, it’s not just about the Sabbath. It’s about God’s Glory being measured by His laws. The Sabbath is just one example of how absurd it is to say that the law He supposedly gave to a particular group of people in a particular time for a particular reason is the end-all and be-all of God’s Glory and Holiness.”
    A: I never said his laws are the ‘end-all and be-all of God’s Glory and Holiness’.
    Rather, his commandments reflect his character and he will not allow them to be compromised without vengeance BECAUSE of his great righteousness and glory. I agree that his commandments are not the sum total of his glory.

    You said: “yet even these multiplied a billion times in difficulty, in stringency, will not be enough for His Glory. Nothing ever will be. Not blood, in itself and by itself, whether the one who shed it is sinless or not.”
    A: The life (and blood) of Jesus satisfies Gods demand for justice against sin. The perfection and holiness of Jesus Christ, the unspotted lamb, is enough to make a permanent and final atonement for sin. (Hebrews 9:26). In fact you need to read Hebrews Chapter 8 and 9 in entirety. The reason why God has infinite justice is because of his righteousness which in turn is a facet of his Glory.

    You said: “Conversely, He could give easier laws, if He pleases, and it would not at all reflect negatively on His Holiness.”
    A: Easier laws equals sin, something he detests. I doubt it very much.

    You said: “The very idea of ‘falling short of His glory’ is blasphemous, as pointed out by Ibn Anwar. We never were and never will be deserving of His Glory, except when He covers us with His Mercy, in whatever manner He pleases.”
    A: Falling short of his glory is not blasphemous, it’s a reality. We do. You have also effectively said that we deserve Gods glory when he covers us with his mercy. You are getting warm here, however the Christian position would never say ‘we deserve’. We would say by grace God allows his glory to cover us.

    You said: “Your contention has been answered many times by bro. Ibn Anwar. That He willed animal blood as a means for His Grace to work does not remove the fact that He may choose NOT to use blood as a means to forgive. Therefore, it is NOT necessary. Can He not use other means to forgive?
    A: If Gods chooses to forgive without blood then why choose blood at all at any time? There must be a reason behind it. The day of atonement was supposed to be an everlasting statute (Lev. 16:30,31). Why has it disappeared? Indeed it has not. The book of Hebrews declares that Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant (8:26). Jesus fulfilled the day of atonement once and forever. (Hebrew 9:11,12). As well trained and skilled as Ibn Anwar is, his view points are affected by certain assumptions that are by no means rock solid.

    The ‘whatever manner he pleases’ (to forgive sins) that you propose is a very non-descript and nebulous concept. God has only one clear, decisive and final way to forgive sins. He showed this pattern to Israel and completed it through the Lord Jesus Christ.

    You said: “So God is holding our lives hostage?”
    A: God is demanding payment for your sins. Will you pay for them or will you allow Jesus who has already paid the price for them to pay them in full? Will you allow him to wash you clean so that you can walk in the presence of God forever?

  102. abu ismail jaafar says:

    You said: ‘So God gets tired then. Please do not include us Muslims in your blasphemy. So much of your talk for God’s glory. Far be it from Him to require rest. Slumber seizes Him not, neither does Sleep (Qur’an, 2:255). While man was not made for the Sabbath according to the bible, God is not exempted from it?’
    A: Who mentioned sleep? Does ‘rest’ equal ‘sleep’; of course not. Did God get tired? Does it say that? You assume too much. Getting back to the original point, his commandments do reflect his character and he will not allow them to be compromised (without retribution) because of his righteousness and majesty. Remember, we are made in his image and likeness. For this reason, the spiritual and moral laws he adheres to are going to be important for us too.

    ‘Sleep’ is rest for most of creation. No, I don’t assume too much. you believe He ‘rested’ on the seventh day. You have not explained how God ‘rested’, and why He supposedly needs to rest at all, if you admit that He does not get tired.

    It is you who assume too much of God’s nature. There is a CATEGORICAL difference between man and the Creator. Explain how God rested, if you can. or how He adheres to His laws, and why He needs to adhere to them. Does He answer to another Judge?

    You said: “Besides, it’s not just about the Sabbath. It’s about God’s Glory being measured by His laws. The Sabbath is just one example of how absurd it is to say that the law He supposedly gave to a particular group of people in a particular time for a particular reason is the end-all and be-all of God’s Glory and Holiness.”
    A: I never said his laws are the ‘end-all and be-all of God’s Glory and Holiness’.
    Rather, his commandments reflect his character and he will not allow them to be compromised without vengeance BECAUSE of his great righteousness and glory. I agree that his commandments are not the sum total of his glory.

    If it is not the end-all and be-all of His Glory, why the Christian obsession for it? If you agree that it is not the sum total of His Glory, then the atonement will not help you out with the other aspects of His Glory. For example, does the atonement make you omnipotent?

    You said: “yet even these multiplied a billion times in difficulty, in stringency, will not be enough for His Glory. Nothing ever will be. Not blood, in itself and by itself, whether the one who shed it is sinless or not.”

    A: The life (and blood) of Jesus satisfies Gods demand for justice against sin. The perfection and holiness of Jesus Christ, the unspotted lamb, is enough to make a permanent and final atonement for sin. (Hebrews 9:26). In fact you need to read Hebrews Chapter 8 and 9 in entirety. The reason why God has infinite justice is because of his righteousness which in turn is a facet of his Glory.

    To quote you, these are “assumptions that are by no means rock solid.
    ” But this is another topic altogether, which I’m not going to discuss with you. I think this and other sites have plenty of articles which point to many statements in the Bible being unreliable.

    You said: “Conversely, He could give easier laws, if He pleases, and it would not at all reflect negatively on His Holiness.”
    A: Easier laws equals sin, something he detests. I doubt it very much.

    Why would it be a sin if He is the one who permitted it? Do you believe it’s a sin to eat pork?
    Also, if the atonement really works, can you now fulfill all the requirements of the law? Basically, what your supposed atonement did is to have Prophet Jesus killed and then God now issued easier rules for Christians to follow.

    You said: “The very idea of ‘falling short of His glory’ is blasphemous, as pointed out by Ibn Anwar. We never were and never will be deserving of His Glory, except when He covers us with His Mercy, in whatever manner He pleases.”

    A: Falling short of his glory is not blasphemous, it’s a reality. We do. You have also effectively said that we deserve Gods glory when he covers us with his mercy. You are getting warm here, however the Christian position would never say ‘we deserve’. We would say by grace God allows his glory to cover us.

    I’ll repeat a point here.If you agree that it (the law) is not the sum total of His Glory, then the atonement will not help you out with the other aspects of His Glory. For example, does the atonement make you omnipotent? To add, God is not bound by time, another aspect of His Glory, His Existence being the Necessary Existence. Does the atonement overcome these limitations? These are aspects of His Glory, yet I don’t think Christians will ever become necessarily existent.

    At least I agree with you on one thing. I stand corrected. We can never ‘deserve’ God’s Glory, as stated by the Prophet Muhammad. Still, God can and does allow His Glory to cover us by Grace through any means He pleases. Still, we were never and will never deserve His Glory, as you pointed out to me. So how can we fall short of it, when we were never deserving of it in the first place?

    This means that even if we did not sin, we are still not deserving of His Glory. That is why I

    You said: “Your contention has been answered many times by bro. Ibn Anwar. That He willed animal blood as a means for His Grace to work does not remove the fact that He may choose NOT to use blood as a means to forgive. Therefore, it is NOT necessary. Can He not use other means to forgive?

    A: If Gods chooses to forgive without blood then why choose blood at all at any time? There must be a reason behind it. The day of atonement was supposed to be an everlasting statute (Lev. 16:30,31). Why has it disappeared? Indeed it has not. The book of Hebrews declares that Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant (8:26). Jesus fulfilled the day of atonement once and forever. (Hebrew 9:11,12). As well trained and skilled as Ibn Anwar is, his view points are affected by certain assumptions that are by no means rock solid.

    You haven’t answered the question. Can He not use other means to forgive?

    The ‘whatever manner he pleases’ (to forgive sins) that you propose is a very non-descript and nebulous concept. God has only one clear, decisive and final way to forgive sins. He showed this pattern to Israel and completed it through the Lord Jesus Christ.

    No, it is not nebulous at all, and I did not propose it. It is a necessary attribute of God that He is not bound by anything, otherwise whatever binds Him is greater than Him. He is the Independent, al-Ghani. He does whatever He pleases. Forgiveness for Muslims is similar to the Parable of the Prodigal Son in your Bible. The repentant son is forgiven, no blood, no atonement, no payment. All that was required was his sincere repentance. God MAY use means to forgive though, in as much as He creates healing in medicine for our illnesses, even though He can create our healing without medicine. Hence my question about the necessity of blood for Him to forgive.

    You said: “So God is holding our lives hostage?”

    A: God is demanding payment for your sins. Will you pay for them or will you allow Jesus who has already paid the price for them to pay them in full? Will you allow him to wash you clean so that you can walk in the presence of God forever?

    The father of the prodigal son did not demand payment from him. Again, washing a sinner clean of sins takes place as God wills it.

  103. mrkiller says:

    “A: The life (and blood) of Jesus satisfies Gods demand for justice against sin. The perfection and holiness of Jesus Christ, the unspotted lamb, is enough to make a permanent and final atonement for sin”

    was the blood of your god divine by anyway? was there divine blood transfusions going between the 3 love triangle gods in heaven? is god unable to make a perfect and sinless being unless he fills himself in that perfect and sinless being? “unspotted lamb” ? you stupid pagan, show me in the torah where MALE lambs have anything to do with your concept of antonement? it must be MALE lamb. the ‘perfection and holiness’? so now its DEEDS which god is recalling to satisfy /appease himself combined with blood? your ANIMAL god /lamb god does activities on earth and this makes your cosmic god happy? so what DEED did the blood do? its all superstituous bulls hit.

  104. mrkiller says:

    “A: God is demanding payment for your sins. Will you pay for them or will you allow Jesus who has already paid the price for them to pay them in full? Will you allow him to wash you clean so that you can walk in the presence of God forever?”

    notice the pathetic play on words. the uncensored version which does not play on words should be something like this. god in christianity made payment /paid cash/paid cheque to HIMSELF by allowing his MEAT puppet disguise get abused by PAGAN roman soldiers.
    do you see something. god made payment TO himself. lol
    and guess what? the payment was made with help from all 2 members of the trinity meaning the other 2 pagan gods helped out the son to make payment to themselves or whatever bull s hit it is.

    i quote socinus once again :
    15. Even if the divine nature could suffer (which it can’t), it would not avail to satisfy the penalty for sin because that penalty is owed by humanity (not divinity) and must be paid by the human nature.

    Even if the divine nature in Christ could suffer somehow, it could not contribute toward satisfaction. Satisfaction to divine justice had to be made by the human nature alone, not by the divine nature in any way.

    This fact would seem to rule out the power which you allege that the divine nature (which itself experienced no suffering) bestowed on the sufferings of the human nature. For if that infinite power does not arise from the human nature but is bestowed on the sufferings by his divine nature, I fail to see how satisfaction could have been made to divine justice. Divine justice not only requires that human nature itself should make satisfaction, but divine justice also utterly demands that the power of satisfaction should come from human nature.

    An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.

    The law that decreed the punishment careful-ly takes into account the typical strength of a human being, and metes out punishment to harm the offender as the seriousness of the crime warrants. If the offender’s strength ismiraculously increased, then the offender does not yet feel the affliction that the law intends. Consequently, a fair judge would never allow a guilty person to be strength-ened and supported in this way. But suppose that the transgressor is furnished with ex-traordinary strength that far and away ex-ceeds the strength people typically possess, so that the burden which is heavy for everyone else is not particularly heavy for this individual. Since the force of the burden cannot—or rather, should not—be diminished, the fair judge, complying with the spirit of the law rather than its letter, will increase the burden. The judge will do this because the intent of the law is that the transgressor should experience the weight of the burden that the transgression demands.

    …If this human nature is strengthened from a source outside itself, so that it experienced the punishment much less—or even somewhat less—than the law required, the human nature will not have made satisfaction to the law in any way (pp. 79-81).

    so how does bull ‘wash himself clean’ with jesoos’s blood ? does he get a filling like a cake? does he visualize his god hanging off a cross? when he sins does he recall a jew hanging off a cross? oh no, he has to also recall his gods deeds. see , these christians cannot let go off DEEDS 100 PERCENT neither can they let go off LAW 100 % they still DESPERATELY need them. although they have downplayed them.

    so christians like tony blair murder countless iraqis. so tony blair washes himself clean with bulls god poxy blood. see something here? the person stained in DEEP sin only has to do a methaphorical ritual bathing IN cosmic divine blood and bobs your uncle your charge sheet list is clean. phEkin PATHETIC.

    • abu ismail jaafar says:

      “Even if the divine nature could suffer (which it can’t), it would not avail to satisfy the penalty for sin because that penalty is owed by humanity (not divinity) and must be paid by the human nature.

      Even if the divine nature in Christ could suffer somehow, it could not contribute toward satisfaction. Satisfaction to divine justice had to be made by the human nature alone, not by the divine nature in any way.

      This fact would seem to rule out the power which you allege that the divine nature (which itself experienced no suffering) bestowed on the sufferings of the human nature. For if that infinite power does not arise from the human nature but is bestowed on the sufferings by his divine nature, I fail to see how satisfaction could have been made to divine justice. Divine justice not only requires that human nature itself should make satisfaction, but divine justice also utterly demands that the power of satisfaction should come from human nature.

      An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.

      The law that decreed the punishment careful-ly takes into account the typical strength of a human being, and metes out punishment to harm the offender as the seriousness of the crime warrants. If the offender’s strength ismiraculously increased, then the offender does not yet feel the affliction that the law intends. Consequently, a fair judge would never allow a guilty person to be strength-ened and supported in this way. But suppose that the transgressor is furnished with ex-traordinary strength that far and away ex-ceeds the strength people typically possess, so that the burden which is heavy for everyone else is not particularly heavy for this individual. Since the force of the burden cannot—or rather, should not—be diminished, the fair judge, complying with the spirit of the law rather than its letter, will increase the burden. The judge will do this because the intent of the law is that the transgressor should experience the weight of the burden that the transgression demands.

      …If this human nature is strengthened from a source outside itself, so that it experienced the punishment much less—or even somewhat less—than the law required, the human nature will not have made satisfaction to the law in any way (pp. 79-81).”

      Good points here.

  105. mrkiller says:

    “A: God is demanding payment for your sins. Will you pay for them or will you allow Jesus who has already paid the price for them to pay them in full? Will you allow him to wash you clean so that you can walk in the presence of God forever?”

    HOLD on a second. you methaphorically have a ritual BLOOD bath because of your IMAGINATION i.e. it is a BELIEF. it is a BELIEF in your brains. is this WHAT GOD wants? is this how low he has become all he wants you to do is have an imagination of himself haging off a cross? mere belief? belief satisfiies him? forget the beauties in the heavens and the earth says god. forget the many things god had provided man to EAT, all god in christianity wants is BELIEF that he was MURDERED by romans for mans sins? is this a god? this is pagan greek idea which mocks THE TRUE GOD

  106. The Bull says:

    Falling short of Gods glory in the context of sinning (Romans 3:23) means that one is spiritually bankrupt. You seem to be confusing falling short of Gods attributes with falling short of his righteousness. Of course no one can attain Gods glory in the sense of his power and majesty. You can’t have two omnipotent forces anyway because that is oxymoronic. This is not what Paul means (obviously) and we know Satan fell into this trap of attempting to be ‘like the most high’ (Isaiah 14:14). What Paul is saying echoes the prophets in that we are all unrighteous and unclean (Isaiah, Psalms).
    When we become without spot or blemish or blameless in his sight THEN we don’t fall short of his righteousness (his righteous standard).

    You said: “‘Sleep’ is rest for most of creation. No, I don’t assume too much. you believe He ‘rested’ on the seventh day. You have not explained how God ‘rested’, and why He supposedly needs to rest at all, if you admit that He does not get tired.”
    A: Strong translates the word ‘resteth’ from the Hebrew ‘shabath’: desist from exertion. Nowhere is sleep or tiredness mentioned in this definition. I don’t know exactly what God was doing. Maybe he just wanted to stand back and appreciate his creation for a little while. Why don’t you ask him?

    You said: “Why would it be a sin if He is the one who permitted it? Do you believe it’s a sin to eat pork?
    Also, if the atonement really works, can you now fulfill all the requirements of the law? Basically, what your supposed atonement did is to have Prophet Jesus killed and then God now issued easier rules for Christians to follow.”
    Both Jesus and Paul suggest that pork is now OK to eat so therefore it is no sin to eat pork. The moral laws are not easier, we just have more grace to follow them. The ceremonial laws (e.g. pork eating) are a different class of laws and are now done away with because of Christ. Sabbath keeping also appears to have been done away with.

    You said: “You haven’t answered the question. Can He not use other means to forgive?”
    A: I guess not. Sorry. You have to believe in Jesus in the Christian way. Logically, if there was any other way, he would have used it rather than sacrifice the righteous and wonderful King of Kings. Jesus himself said ‘if it be possible’ (to find another way to forgive sins). Sorry Lord, there wasn’t.; but thank you for what you did.

    You quote the prodigal son. The mechanism for forgiveness is still through the atonement concept even though not specifically mentioned. Logically, if you use the prodigal son from the bible as support for your view point you should also accept the other concepts in that book.

  107. abu ismail jaafar says:

    Hmmm, by the way, Bull, a bit of a contradiction here:

    The ‘whatever manner he pleases’ (to forgive sins) that you propose is a very non-descript and nebulous concept. God has only one clear, decisive and final way to forgive sins. He showed this pattern to Israel and completed it through the Lord Jesus Christ.

    and your reply to Steve:

    You said “In the Gospels, Jesus forgave sins before he died.”

    Remember, we think he is God so it is not a problem.

    A bit nebulous here, sir, as you said about the Islamic belief of God using any means He pleases to cover His creation with His Rahma and to forgive sins.

    Muslims believe it is not a problem for God to forgive sins without blood, much as Jesus, whom you think is God (subhanallah, God is far exalted above having the attributes of creation), forgave sins before he supposedly died and shed his blood on the cross.

  108. abu ismail jaafar says:

    As salaamu alaikum bro. Ibn Anwar, muslim bros and sisters reading this blog, and to the non-muslims as well,

    The comments section of this particular entry is getting a bit cluttered, and even a bit off topic, considering that this is supposed to be about Dr. Shorrosh. May I suggest the comments about atonement to be moved here: http://unveilingchristianity.w.....sacrifice/ ? The excellent article and the references in it may even be used in future exchanges.

    Just a suggestion though. I respect bro. Ibn Anwar’s decision on this one, since it’s his blog. Wa salaam.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Wa’alaikum salam warahmatullah.
      I concur with Abu Ismail Jaafar’s suggestion. This post has accumulated well over 100 comments as such further discussions on the latest issues may proceed to the suggested location http://unveilingchristianity.w.....sacrifice/. Thereafter no further comments may be made here. Thank you. Wassalam.

A partner of Ittaqullah! Foundation.